[tacticalogic]

You assert an "amoral" position as being objective. Insofar as it is patently exclusive of the moral position (as you have reiterated), how then can it be truly "objective?"

Call me stupid, but I can't seem to figure that out.

I didn't assert it was an "amoral" position, you did. The assertion was that it wasn't "that bad". An amoral position would deny "good" or "bad" as having any relevance at all. Beyond there, there's the flawed tacit assertion that any "amoral" argument is inherently immoral by simply failing to address morality. Think you can figure that out?

[BlackElk]

Just one more reason to be delighted that paleoPaulie and the libertines got the buttkicking he and they richly deserved in the POTUS primaries. Too bad the people of the GOP primary in Texas 14 failed to show the same common sense and send his sorry backside into retirement.

Al Qaeda's spokesthing in Congress will be around for another two years as a continued embarrassment to America and to the GOP caucus. Well, at least the old anti-American bastard is 72 years old and cannot have much Congressional time left. It IS still possible that he might be offered the opportunity to run as Cynthia McKinney's running mate on the moonbat ticket. Or maybe some Republican Member of Congress would display the cojones to move to expel Paul from the GOP Caucus.

[the invisib1e hand]

I didn't assert it was an "amoral" position, you did.

What exactly do you mean by "objective?" It is your proposition of morality.

Oh, so much here.

Beyond there, there's the flawed tacit assertion that any "amoral" argument is inherently immoral by simply failing to address morality.

An amoral argument doesn't "fail to address morality," it excludes it by definition.

But I think you're smart enough to figure that and everything else out.

You'll have to argue with yourself now.