• It's all in the presentation...

    Ben Stein has been slapped in economic debates by Schiff and now foreign policy debates by Paul. Essentially, Stein accepted the idea that this was a consequence of our meddling, but spun it as much as possible to the extent of name calling so focus would be taken off of that point. Stein is a smooth talker like all the rest, something our movement is really lacking is a smooth talker who can handle these noobs when they start spinning.

    I agree that Paul handled this a lot better than previously, but he didn't handle it right. He was interrupting Stein while he was talking. He should have waited for him to finish and then tear him down.

    I don't see a purpose in seeking an apology and we shouldn't care about this idiot. He came off looking like an ahole and anyone could see that. Let's keep that image in the viewers mind.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Google

    Why don't you get off your high-horse and google him you noob.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • See Below

    See my post below (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/119299#comment-1289163), I was beginning to think I was the only one in here that didn't support tyranny. sigh... of relief

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Irrational Fears Continued

    The goal that he is talking about is the break up of the family.

    His time would be better spent on creating a strong family of his own and teaching the reasons for having it.

    No one "hates" or "fears" gays here. It's just a behaviour.

    What is behaviour?

    Yes hatred stems from fear or sadness and they most certainly fear that homosexuality will destroy the family unit. It is an irrational fear based on little or no empirical evidence. The destruction of the family unit has many other explanations grounded in empirical and logical analysis. They are suffering from homophobia on a grand scale.

    Stop being such a knee jerk, PC blowhard

    Look in the mirror, you simpleton noob.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Irrational Fears and Tyranny

    originally meant 'fear of men',

    but now it has been bastardized, as so many other words have been lately (like the word 'gay', for example)

    to mean fear of homosexuals.

    Phobias have been used to describe particular psychological disorders relating to anxiety for decades. Psychology has only been around since the late 19th century. Faggot used to mean a bundle of sticks, now it refers to homosexuals (or bikers if you watch South Park). You have absolutely no point with your play on semantics.

    Homophobia means more than just a fear of homosexuals. For example, this anxiety everyone is facing with the "fear of losing the family unit", would fit very nicely into homophobia.

    The marriage unit hasn't gotten weaker because of homosexuality. One reason is that woman have began to assert their rights. Men used to beat, rape, and cheat on their wifes with no consequence. Woman have finally stood up and started asserting their rights and the chauvinistic man is crying about it by blaming it on gays.

    If you want to blame the destruction of the family unit on anything, blame it on too many distractions with two parents having to work, too many video games and widgets, too many advancements to make our lives easier and de- necessitate the need for many children to work on the farms, blame it on the high divorce rate, blame it on adulterous parents, blame it on us not having organized marriages, etc.

    Unless you are worried that homosexuality is going to turn the world gay, which is an absurd and irrational phobia, then I see no reason for this hurting the family unit.

    That's a popular theory amongst psychologists and psychiatrists these days, but the theory makes as much sense as saying that anyone who speaks out against pedophilia is a latent pedophile,or anyone, today, who does not wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, is a latent homosexual,or anyone who is against murder is a latent serial killer,or anyone who speaks out against spousal abuse is a latent spousal abuser.

    Just as absurd as the notion that homosexuality should be treated as murder is to a clearly understudied student of liberty. This overall post stinks of an understudied psychology student.

    Your hatred, or none hatred of gays, is beside the point. You have an irrational fear that gays are going to destroy the family unit. This is based on absolutely no empirical evidence. It is an irrational fear of the supposed consequences of homosexuality.

    If you want to use the force of government to prevent and control the process of creating legal contracts among persons or multiple people, on the basis of religious or personal belief, then you are a tyrant. If you want to use the force of government to define the terminology that we use to protect tradition, then you are a tyrant. This is two sides of the same coin. The Government has NO ROLE in dictating to its people what marriage is or isn't. Ron Paul has echoed the same principles various times on this ridiculous issue.

    Irrational fears about others or society can lead to tyranny and genocide. Hitler was a mastermind at creating doubt and fear into his people's minds. This led to the destruction of millions of innocent lives. If you want to open up that door, then feel free, but it has absolutely nothing to do with liberty or protecting the family unit.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Ignorance is Bliss

    1 male
    2 female
    3 gay male
    4 gay female
    5. hermaphodite
    6 transvestite missing parts
    7 men who were given special hormones so they could breatfeed.
    8 it continued.

    The progressives understanding of gender and sexuality is just as bad as the gay-haters on here.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Homophobia, Sexuality, and Liberty

    I'm relieved to see some sane individuals on here, but sadly they are the minority.

    I've searched for some intellectual understanding of sexuality and I haven't seen it. All I see is angry anti-gay hatred. There are two types of homophobia:

    1) You absolutely hate gays.
    2) You are afraid of gays.

    The anti-gay posts stink of both forms of homophobia. The funny thing about homophobia is, usually those who feel it so strongly usually have sexual insecurities of their own. You may want to look inside yourself to determine whether or not you are utilizing the psychological mechanism of projection.

    Sexuality is not a black and white issue, read up on Alfred Kinsey and the works of other sexologists.

    Any claims that homosexuality should be treated as murder, etc., is completely insane. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of sexuality, psychology, science, liberty, property rights, and what it means to be free.

    Even the Bible's underlying ideals of free-will spit on your position. But we cannot expect those who take everything in the Bible literally to even grasp the true concept of free will. If you are one of these people, then I understand why you are confused as a result of the massive volume of inconsistencies and contradictions that would be found in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Social Conservatism and Progressivism are two sides to the same coin. That is the coin of tyranny.

    I suppose our freedom and natural rights come from Government, huh?

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Such a Simpleton Noob

    It is spelled ignoramus. If you are going to call someone an ignoramus try not coming off like such an ignoramus yourself.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Property Rights

    You need to study, more deeply, property rights and natural rights. Theft, murder, etc., are infringements into another person’s property rights, life, liberty, etc. Marriage doesn't infringe on anyone’s rights. It just bothers the religious type who want to push their morality on everyone. Your own tyrannical vanity and hatred you have towards those who are different than you; doesn't have anyting to do with the ethics of liberty.

    Marriage is private and should be handled in the private sector. The government has no role in marriage.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Reference

    Can you send me some good references with original sources on Appolonius... I've been digging for something like this for quite some time.

    Either way Celsus's work comes from the 2nd century which is incredible considering its content.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Giving George Bush a Pass

    When Bush ran on a humble foreign policy and fiscal conservatism he had a lot of support. People thought he was going to be the constitutional/liberty candidate we needed.

    Bush then passed the patriot act and some other non-liberty items. Many "conservatives" continued to apologize for him, saying he's still better than Gore would be.

    So these "conservatives" kept apologizing and apologizing until eventually it wasn't even worth it anymore. Bush was so terrible that one couldn't apologize for him anymore at all.

    All of you who are apologizing for Rand’s statements and stating "he's the lesser of two evils", "the better of the two", "I agree with his issue positions 94% but on principles we are probably way off (oops you overlooked that)" are no different than those claiming Bush was still a conservative after eight years of progressivism. You’ve taken that first step.

    If we cannot hold our own family responsible when they do something wrong then we will reap what we sew. For those of you who donated to Rand, yesterday, you should be aware that you now gave him the fuel to continue ignoring your concerns and questions, and gave him the authority to behave as a typical politician.

    So, NO I didn’t donate to him yesterday and I will not fall into the same trap as did the neo-cons. I’m now more disappointed with this movement overall than I am with Rand. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be nice to send $25,000 to Kokesh, $25,000 to Towne, $25,000 to Harris, $25,000 to Vasvoski, rather than another $100,000 to a candidate that already has hundreds of thousands?

    I hope the donors are right in their apologies and are prepared to deal with the consequence of placing one questionable senator in Congress vs. helping to put dozens of concrete candidates in. Taking one seat gets us nowhere, taking the Congress gets us our Freedom.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Crazy

    I am trying to contain from expressing my real feelings about the above posts.

    I can sum up my feelings for the above comments with one word:

    CRAZY!

    You are not alone Zigi; social conservatism is just as tyrannical as progressivism. They are two sides of the same coin; the coin of tyranny.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Disturbing Isn't It

    This is why I'm a libertarian and not a conservative. Social Conservatives want to control our social lives and liberals want to control our economic lives. Either way you get tyranny.

    Unfortunately, the liberals are going to continue to win because the social conservatives have convinced the majority of liberals that all conservatives are tyrannical. It is easy to convince others that social-conservatism (legislating morality) is tyrannical while it isn't so easy to convince liberals that Keynesian Economics and welfare are tyrannical.

    Rebel,

    I would suggest you study Alfred Kinsey and the works of other sexologists so you won’t have such a simplistic view of sexuality. Of course, if you take the Old Testament literally, then there really isn’t any point in trying to convince you of anything grounded in science.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Yeah he is MIA

    He is certainly missing in action. I do have the rebuttal to what he wrote below ready, but I was waiting for his second part.

    I've studied quite a bit of psychological, especially anxiety related treatments, so I was hoping for more of that as well. As I said before, Ellis is a great Psychologist but he should avoid discussing economics and philosophy having not studied the best in these fields.

    Einstein has a paper on socialism from years ago and you would think he was an economic moron after reading it.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Social Conservatism Loses

    We now have a culture of sexual vagrancy. We're all aware of the "hookup", along with the devastating impact this has on the lives of young women (and in truth on all of us).

    Do you not think your grandmother and grandfather weren't vagrant sexual creatures too? Do you have any idea how horribly woman were treated by their husbands in the past? They would beat them, and cheat on them left and right with absolutely no regard for their well being. (have you read the scarlet letter?) Women have also been just as promiscuous throughout the ages as they are now. It is in our human nature to have sex, period. “It was only more private, hidden, and unspoken years ago; it still went on just as much.” - My 95yr old grandmother.

    The second consequence is that contraception has fundamentally changed the meaning of marriage. Most married couples still have one or two children. But big families are now rare, and many couples are childless.

    Having ten children is a fairly selfish thing to do anyway. The more children you have the less time you have to care for them, educate them, and show them love. You pretend as if all of these children were planned. Give me a break. Furthermore, children aren’t as “needed” as much as they were years ago. The disregard for the care of this human life, and treatment of it like animals, was almost as outrageous as abortion.

    Does this mean same-sex marriage can be stopped ?I hope so, but I think it's doubtful.

    The government has absolutely no role in defining marriage; period. The reason the Republican Party has been getting killed by the democrats is because the majority of Americans can be easily convinced that what you are saying is tyrannical; while trying to explain that Keynesian economics is tyrannical is far more difficult.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Killing Children is Okay but that pesty Iraq War is not...

    Henry, you pretend to care so much about the lives of those Iraqi's but with your thinking there is nothing wrong with killing all of the non-sentient and unconditioned humans in Iraq.

    You cannot have it both ways. You either care about life or you don't.

    You must mean that you are ticked off that so many adult Iraqi's have been killed. Who cares about the children, the elderly, the mentally ill, right? They don't deserve to be alive anyway, so what does it matter?

    I wonder if TreeTop007 agrees with Henry that it is okay to kill children or any non-sentient/incapable of self-sustainment human.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • TreeTop007

    Did you even read his blog?

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Intellectual Honesty

    Well at least you are intellectually honest. You are willing to bite the bullet on stating that non-sentient and unconditioned humans do not have a right to life and murdering them is perfectly in line with the ethics of liberty. With your logic, I can kill any child I want for they are simply unworthy of living in their current state.

    I'll stay on the other side and bite the bullet that all human life has a right to their life. Categorical Imperative could very well be reflected upon the human race if your view became a dominant one. As a member of the human species, I strive for our species survival; to consent to the idea that non-sentient and unconditioned life does not have a right to life would be counter-productive to the survival of the human species. I cannot think of anything more scientific than the natural selection of human beings selecting their own brethren whom may or may not be sentient and conditioned, and doing all that we can to ensure their survival.

    On your comments about natural rights not coming from nature; I'd encourage you to read "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. One can hardly call themselves a libertarian without having read this work; he would agree with your position on abortion and I believe he is wrong.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • I hope so

    rather than cower behind a bunch of trolls and staffers and ignore his base.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

  • Not an arbitrarily chosen date, however

    people had been celebrating on this date for centuries before Jesus as well.

    It's just a great holiday season and time of year. Techniquely saying happy holidays is more correct, since there are various holidays during this time of year. But I much prefer Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays; it has a more pleasant sound.

    "Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises