Re: LetsShrug,

While I can appreciate your defense of khalling, I Don,t accept the premise of having posted for 2 years as some sort of expertise on anything.

I often ask about writers meaning and ask them for clarification. However as I'm fairly familiar with the English language
, I usually need no interpreters for what I read. I'm dismissing anything out of hand, but am responding to what I read. Whether I just "walked in" or not is totally or irellevent.

Fred

Re: LetsShrug,

While I can appreciate your defense of khalling, I Don,t accept the premise of having posted for 2 years as some sort of expertise on anything.

I often ask about writers meaning and ask them for clarification. However as I'm fairly familiar with the English language
, I usually need no interpreters for what I read. I'm dismissing anything out of hand, but am responding to what I read. Whether I just "walked in" or not is totally or irellevent.

Fred

Re: khalling,

This will be my last post regarding anything you have to say. Yes, I was directing my last comment to you and as you have probably noticed, I usually write the words Re; khalling or to whomever I am responding to. I apologize for not having done so on the last post.

To get back to our points of discussion, I must strongly disagree with you about whether the sacrifice of an individual is the measure of an Objectivist or anyone else. Ayn Rand’s point in her comment regarding sacrifice for another man was dealing with being asked to do so by another man or even worse having it demanded of you. I’m talking about an individual’s willingness of his own accord to offer his sacrifice for someone else. Clearly we see Ayn Rand’s philosophy differently. In my humble opinion you have a strong misunderstanding of that philosophy. As an example, in Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden was willing to sacrifice his freedom on his own accord in order to supply Dagny Taggart with the rails she needed. He offered and she didn't ask but did accept his offer. Free will is what this philosophy is all about.

Every member of the military I have ever known, including myself, has fought for an idea. Sometimes they were misled by their leadership and were therefore betrayed. Sadly that has happened way too often. But it would be a misjudgment on your part to not admire their willingness to put their life on the line for their understanding of an idea. For example, I served in the Marine Corps because of my background as an immigrant who had escaped from East Germany and lived there under Communism, not a wonderful experience. I joined because I thought that we were fighting against Communism in Vietnam, but instead we were betrayed by our own government and pulled out instead of defeating the communist government of North Vietnam completely. We certainly could have done so. We never lost a single battle until the politicians decided to turn tail and run.

But this discussion will lead us nowhere, political, moral and economical integrity is a concept that I sincerely believe is beyond your comprehension. I truly wish to believe that I’m wrong about your position, but I truly doubt it.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

That's because you can't see that there is no better man or woman that is willing to lay down their lives for another. Not having that sort of character is your loss my friend, not mine.

The real sad part is that it is obvious that you are not sure whether you are a liberal progressive or a conservative with real beliefs and principles.

Fred Speckmann

Re; khaling,

Obviously you didn't bother to read the definition you sent me.
"glorify, to honor or praise." No one, especially those that have served in the military expects their service to be glorified. In fact most that have served in combat seldom speak of it. The word glorify was used by you and not by me. Perhaps it is only semantics that we argue about, but I believe in words having meaning and I objected to the context in which you used the word. i assure you that I nor anyone that has served would choose the word glorify to describe what soldiers do in the extraordinary context of combat.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

Re: Hiraghm.

You're not as outraged like most of us because you believe that what she wrote is hyperbole, I would disagree because spoiled brat twits like her actually believe what they say and write to be true. I can't prove it, but i have known many people like her who think that their s..t doesn't stink. I hope that you can forgive my language in expressing my disgust with a lightweight individual like her.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

From Merriam-Webster online:
"glo·ri·fy
verb \ˈglȯr-ə-ˌfī\

: to honor or praise (a god or goddess)

: to make (something) seem much better or more important than it really is"

I disagree with khalling; without the soldiers in the short run, there will be no long run for Rand, Aristotle, or Locke to ponder.

"Ideology *counts*. But when it counts, it does the counting with a sword."
- King Arakal in "Ideological Defeat"

Paltrow's tweet was hyperbole, and for some bizarre reason I'm not as outraged by it as others.

Re: aogilmore,

She certainly could have used those words to describe a mean comment made on the internet. what makes her a twit is the comparison to the danger of warfare and to compare herself to suffering an insult to what a soldier experiences in war.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

re: freedomforall,
Bravo for your accurate analysis of the self anointed brilliance of Hollywood twits.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

Re: khalling,

Once again we seem to be at odds because of the choice of your words. You state, "But I do not want to glorify being a soldier." Yet you claim to "respect vets and armed forces and how they keep us safe," That is certainly a contradiction in my understanding of the English language. While I don't disagree with the concept of words being important for freedom, however to dismiss the concept of a military to protect those freedoms is terribly naive.

As to Ms. Paltrow's tweet,I believe it's enough to say that she is the ultimate definition of a twit. These self indulgent "Hollywood celebrities" should be just ignored, unfortunately our youngsters worship these ignorant twits.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com