About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 1:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This deserves to be posted here in full:

Sarah Palin 2008 Acceptance Speech

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.

I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.

In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.

And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That's how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.

Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.

When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment.

And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.

We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.

He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.

A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.

He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.

And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.

It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.

It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.

To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.

As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

Thank you all, and may God bless America.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 4:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Clap clap clap. That was good. I noticed that she did not spend any time on social freedom issues (like abortion), only economic freedom (taxes) and war.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The press is going nuts in their Palin attacts. And their support of Obama, and their failure to report on him accurately is awful. This needs to be addressed - to put the media on the defensive and make them more cautious. The amount of harm they've done already is enormous.

When the arena becomes as partisan as it does in a presidential election, it becomes hard to find authoritative voices that can have any effect taking on the media.

Palin can attack the media when they aren't reporting on Obama, or in defense of McCain. The problem is that it looks defensive if Palin defends herself and it gives credibility to the item at question. And some other spokesperson or talking head just looks like a partisan.

I would suggest having McCain launch an attack on the media but only regarding the awful treatment that they've given this young woman - cherry-pick the very worst examples of their attacks on Palin, and grind on them from the high moral ground. He would be pointing out medial bias, but would not be seen as doing it on his own behalf or the behalf of the ticket, but rather as a man protecting this younger woman who is being unfairly attacked. I'll be interested to see what he does in his speech tonight - I don't have high hopes that he'll stray far from his central principle of sacrifice for the country.



Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 8:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In my humble opinion that speech won the election. She turned everything upside down. She has virtually no political baggage and favors to repay. Gloria Steinem is fit to be tied and I think the Democrats should be running scared. I don't agree with a lot of her positions on abortion and Christianity but she is wholesome and this will appeal to many, many voters.

Most of all the whole production was natural and uncontrived. If the vote is a squeaker it'll be the little 4 year old spitting on her hand to smooth the hair on the baby that'll do the trick.

Sam

(and she knows how to dress a moose)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,
I agree with you about "the little 4 year old spitting on her hand to smooth the hair on the baby".  That, for me, was the highlight of the speech.  I disagree with you, however, on the impact of her speech.  I think she was preaching to the choir and didn't change any of the independents' minds.  When her stand on abortion is brought up again and again (she stated that she wouldn't allow an abortion even if her, at that time, 14 year old daughter was raped), I don't think she's going to get the Hilary supporters.

One more thing.  Palin said in her speech last night that "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere".  According to the "Liberal Press", she first ran for Governor on the building of that Bridge.  Then, after she was elected, she cancelled construction.  But, she took the money from the Federal government and kept it.  Unless this turns out to be false, she outright lied in her speech.  She went way beyond the usual rhetoric of a convention speech.  Of course, you could interpret what she said as "thanks [for the money], but no thanks [I don't think I'll build the bridge]". : )
Thanks,
Glenn



Post 5

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The fact that all these Alaskan boys are going into the military tells me that the economy up there must be in the toilet.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 11:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a fun quote from Ann Coulter, pit bull of the religious right, talking about the media's reaction to Palin:

"[The media] criticized Palin, saying it's irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. ...Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they're opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain's vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels."

She is fun to read when you agree with her position :-)



Post 7

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn Fletcher wrote:
According to the "Liberal Press", she first ran for Governor on the building of that Bridge.  Then, after she was elected, she cancelled construction.  But, she took the money from the Federal government and kept it.  Unless this turns out to be false, she outright lied in her speech.  She went way beyond the usual rhetoric of a convention speech.
According to this Anchorage Daily News story the earmark money was received when the previous governor was still in office:
But it is the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan that seems destined to make or break Palin's national reputation as a cost-cutting conservative.
The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on lightly populated Gravina Island, opening up new territory for expansion at the same time. Alaska's congressional delegation endured withering criticism for earmarking $223 million for Ketchikan and a similar amount for a crossing of Knik Arm at Anchorage.
Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else.
Some other parts of the story dim the glow of her cost-cutting, for example:
Similarly, as governor, she has presided over a state flooded with new oil revenues, brought by high oil prices and a new tax regime she pushed over industry objections. She vetoed $268 million in state capital projects this year, but her cuts came out of an unusually swollen capital budget.
With the swollen budget it seems likely ways proposed to spend the money became ever more marginal, make vetoes easier.


Post 8

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 1:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Too bad Gov. Palin isn't at the top of the ticket. She might be the next Ronald Reagan. Still, even if elected -- and McCain quickly passes on -- she'll probably make virtually no difference at all, in terms of advancing human freedom. America desperately needs a laissez-faire capitalist political party to vote for.
(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 9/04, 1:10pm)


Post 9

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

We don't need a phony free marketer like Reagan. In fact, they are more destructive because they discredit the free market. Spending increased under Reagan, including welfare spending. Taxes also went up when he was governor of California.


Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 20, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris:

The fact that all these Alaskan boys are going into the military tells me that the economy up there must be in the toilet.


Can I just say, you are an idiot? Now I know that might sound harsh, but if there were ever a legitimate use of that word, I think it applies to you. I think calling you idiot might even be too nice, but I am a nice guy. My niece's husband just signed up for duty, he has a college degree and doesn't need the army for economic benefit. He signed up for the honor of serving and upholding his own values. So please, take your stupid and insulting comments about our soldiers elsewhere.

Post 11

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 3:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Palin quote I heard this morning on the radio:

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?
  Lipstick." 


Post 12

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

One blogger described her as "Margaret Thatcher with five kids and a Klondike drawl" while Jonah Goldberg of the conservative "National Review" enthused: "She was put on this earth to do two things: kill caribou and kick butt. She's all out of caribou."
Sarah Palin is 'the new Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan'



Post 13

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I was talking to a man who a few weeks ago who served in the Navy back in the 1960's. It was a fun story actually. He told me that he was just thrown out of the house by a distant relative. He apparently fell asleep while doing his laundry. He got arrested for that.

His attorney got him a deal. He could join the Navy or go to a work camp for three months. He chose the Navy.

I know another 20-year-old female who has a slightly older brother. She says that he's had a few DUI's and has used some harder stuff. Guess where he's going? He's going into the military.

It certainly holds true with the ones that I knew who joined the military back when I graduated high school.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You just can't stop insulting our soldiers can you Chris? You can disagree with the war, trash and insult our President, insult me, I don't care, but once you start insulting our men and women in uniform, you prove how despicable a person you are.

Post 15

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Armaos wrote:
Can I just say, you are an idiot?  ... So please, take your stupid and insulting comments about our soldiers elsewhere.
I took Chris Baker's comment to be insulting but not stupid. He should have did some checking and kept his mouth shut. However, his speculation is plausible. Alaska had the 6th highest unemployment rate among states in the July tally, and there is a correlation between between unemployment rates and enlistment rates. (link

Your response, on the other hand, was an emotionalist reaction in another direction. Because your niece's husband enlisted for non-economic reasons does not imply there aren't many who do enlist for economic reasons.


Post 16

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 5:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin please, I never said no soldiers sign up purely out of economic desperation. And I'm not a robot, I do have emotions, I'm not going to jettison them when I hear this moron post on these forums basically insulting some of my closest relatives and friends who serve proudly in the military. He's never met them, and his comments are outrageously disgusting. Yes of course some soldiers sign up for duty purely to escape poverty, but most do it for honor and to serve this country, and most do not serve because they couldn't find other employment. It is actually a huge myth that most soldiers come from impoverished backgrounds, that is largely not the case, especially for officers. Citing a statistical correlation between enlistment rates and unemployment rates doesn't even come close to painting an accurate picture of the military. It could be a weak correlation, it could only pertain to 5% of those who enlist, who knows, show me a study of how many soldiers joined because they were unemployed and could not seek employment else where, then we can start talking. Because there's also a correlation between CO2 emissions and global surface temperatures, but so what? That correlation translates to a 40% increase in CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and a 1 degree increase in temperature over a century. You can see that establishing there's a correlation without delving further is wholly inadequate.



Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It should be obvious, with almost no thought at all, that kids join the service because they are patriotic, or because they are indoctrinated with nationalistic beliefs, or for economic reasons, or because they are told they have to, or because they want adventure, or because they see it as a career choice, or as a reasonable way to pay for college later - so what.

I don't see any reason at all to insult members of the armed forces as a group, nor do I see a reason for putting every member of a profession on a pedestal - that is something that should be reserved for those showing exceptional character traits as an individual, not a group.

John Aramos continues to be abusive in his posts. This does not aid anyone here or ROR as an intellectual site promoting beliefs we hold in common. "Idiot," "despicable person" and "moron" are not proper terms to use against another member of ROR - not even in the midst of heated debate. I've slipped on occasion and gotten snippy and even mildly insulting. I have been chided about it - and rightfully so. We all hold an interest in raising the bar in this area. Maybe it is time we all started speaking up.

Any argument that is 'won' by driving opponents away in a state of disgust is not really won, the quality of the site is diminished and eventually it is likely that good people leave to never come back.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

Any argument that is 'won' by driving opponents away in a state of disgust is not really won, the quality of the site is diminished and eventually it is likely that good people leave to never come back.


Well perhaps you can start by stopping the insults you see fit to hurl at me from day one, insults like calling me evil and altruistic for taking positions that Rand herself took.

John Aramos continues to be abusive in his posts.


Yes, to people who are abusive to me and/or are trolls. Chris is one of them. I'm sorry Joe doesn't have the time to monitor this site more often than he does, he obviously has no obligation to and he's very busy. In the absence of that monitoring anarchists, anti-Americanists, moral relativists and conspiratorialists have plagued this site.

This does not aid anyone here or ROR as an intellectual site promoting beliefs we hold in common. "Idiot," "despicable person" and "moron" are not proper terms to use against another member of ROR


Nor does it aid this site when you call me evil, or altruistic, and especially not when there are for holding positions Rand shared. But let's get something straight here, Chris is a troll. I don't hold everyone on this forum in high regard just because they post here and profess to be an Objectivist, especially posters like Chris who constantly spew anti-Americanism vitriol. Just having the label of "RoR poster" does not at all guarantee they are an Objectivist.

And you're damn straight I am putting the people who have volunteered to put their lives at risk to defend my freedom on a pedestal. They are the finest, most professional soldiers on this planet. I am not going to apologize for that sentiment. Obviously there are a few individuals who serve with dishonor, but I don't see how I can't state what is an essential truth, American soldiers are the most honorable soldiers on this planet.
(Edited by John Armaos on 9/04, 7:49pm)


Post 19

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Armaos wrote:
Merlin please, I never said no soldiers sign up purely out of economic desperation.
Nor did I say you did.
Yes of course some soldiers sign up for duty purely to escape poverty, but most do it for honor and to serve this country, and most do not serve because they couldn't find other employment. ... It could be a weak correlation, it could only pertain to 5% of those who enlist, who knows, show me a study of how many soldiers joined because they were unemployed and could not seek employment else where, then we can start talking.
I agree with the first part, but the whole does not rebut a strong correlation. Suppose the following. E = f(U) + C. C is a constant and C is much of E in all cases. Correlation pertains to how E varies as U varies. I don't have any real values for E, U, and C, so I will make up some data that will make my point and you hopefully agree is reasonable. Suppose we have a set of data points {E, U} with correlation = 1 and the regression equation is E = 1000*U + 1000. U ranges from 0.03 to 0.10. U does little to explain E, but it perfectly explains how E varies.

I did a Google search with 'unemployment enlistment correlation'. I didn't find any correlation numbers in several sites I looked at. I could only see a snip of the first hit site itself, since it was a reference to a journal article. However, the Google return said "simple correlation of .77". That's pretty high. And it makes intuitive sense. Unemployment is often highest among younger, poorer males w/o advanced education. Of course, they are less likely to become officers.

Lastly, I did agree with you that Chris' remark was insulting. My point was it wasn't stupid.

Addenda: Assume another data set {E, U}, correlation = 1, and the regression equation is E = 3000*U + 1000. In this case E varies more as U varies than above (3 times as much) with the same correlation. It's not change in E divided by change in U that correlation quantifies, but the consistency of that relationship.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 9/05, 3:53am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.