@JiggaJonson
fair enough my man.
seems i misinterpreted your comment in regards to people who have a certain belief system.
and i am totally with ya on thoreau,the man was brilliant.

but why didnt you straight up say that to him?
it would explain the tone of your comments and may have led to a much richer and fuller dialogue with blankie concerning his views on libertarianism.

my problems with libertarianism are two-fold:
1.@RFlagg already addressed
and
2.the term libertarian here in america is a bastardized version from the european.so to even BEGIN to have a decent conversation on the matter is already twisted from the get-go.

i consider myself a libertarian-socialist with anarchist leanings,but try to talk to a corpoare-media-fed american about that and they spend the entire time trying to stop their head from exploding.
because it is the MEANINGS of the words they do not understand and what they have been told are propagandized versions.

how can we ever expect to talk about these vital issues if the very meanings of the words have been twisted and contorted?

in my opinion THIS is the real problem.

said to m'sself before I finished reading your epiphany, "It's all in the hips."..The girls have it down which is why I would rather watch them dance and of course, practice contortion!

I've never realized how closely Martin Short's David Steinberg resembles the facial contortions and self-important manner of the equally insufferable Peggy Noonan.

That's right, smugly. It's also your responsibility to remove your own head from your own ass. I may have confounded you and others with the motivation for this post but I am not responsible for the effortless contortions it took for you to arrive nose-to -nose with your own sigmoid.

It really is depressing. Hundreds of years of careful study, interspersed with moments of genius, each backed with millions of man hours of experiment and analysis have revealed a truth that is almost inspirational. That the earth, and everything on it, is formed at the centre of stars and gradually came together in one of the most elegant and brutally efficient processes to arrive where we are now and that process continues!

And yet, bronze age idiots contort themselves to ridiculous extremes to justify a theory that is not only long since disproved but is actually far more boring and clichéd than the truth.

Thank you Jesus!

Chris rewrote his letter with cleaned up language. His reasoning here:

http://blogs.twincities.com/outofbounds/2012/09/08/out-of-bounds-blog-no-8-inquisitive-kitten-pawing-at-yarn/


The letter here (former curse words in all caps):

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,
I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of the United States government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees”, more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a BEAUTIFULLY UNIQUE SPARKLEPONY. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-bogglingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. SAD PUPPY DOG EYES hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” DISAPPOINTED LEMUR FACE WITH SOLITARY TEAR TRICKLING DOWN TO CHIN. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a ten for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about DANCING CHUBTOAD? “ALACK AND ALAS MY TOP HAT HAS FALLEN. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that DELICIOUS STATE FAIR HOTDOG!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (unlikely, gay people enjoy watching football too)
I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero affect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful FROLICKING OSTRICH. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90% of our population, rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth SLIDE WHISTLE TO E FLAT you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

p.s. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. UNFORTUNATELY PHALLIC HEDGE SCULPTURE.

Everyone seems to have their favorite. I loved that it was directed at a "man of the cloth."

Delicious!

In reply to this comment by radx:
"(...) the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism")."

That line alone was more than worth it.
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:

http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is
-offende
d-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it


Bad bad BAD language, but I suspect you might enjoy the English slang lesson. As would @hpqp.

>> ^offsetSammy:

Sorry, intentionally putting someone in danger (and those around them, who had no part in it) by messing with their mirrors is NOT the equivalent of being inconvenienced and not being able to get into your car. What you did is pretty irresponsible, regardless of what the other person did to you.
>> ^Porksandwich:
Yeah I think his car would have fit through much earlier on than when he gave up and left. But I think he hit the car next to him when he spun pushing the car on front.
It used to piss me off to no end back when I commuted to college and people would park too close to me, so much so that I couldn't even open my door enough to get into the vehicle. I used to mess with their side mirror settings and then fold them into their car if they were moveable just to give them irritation right back. Nothing like finding out you can't see shit out of your side mirrors once you're already in traffic. Much like not being able to get into your vehicle to get your books and shit out for class without some gymnastics and contortion. That's not even counting all the door dings and paint scratches those pricks gave my vehicle that had just been painted.



That's hardly intentionally putting someone in danger. Hell half the time I'd have to fold theirs and mine in just to make sure I didn't break something when I tried to get in my car. Plus I didn't actually DAMAGE or disable anything on their vehicle, meanwhile I can see the paint from mine on the edge of their doors where they just bash their door into mine because they can't properly handle a vehicle. They should be glad I didn't absolutely ruin the value of their vehicle like they so casually did to mine on top of blocking it in. You park too close where people have to walk between and mirrors are going to be bumped and moved as people squeeze by, especially when you got people lugging 30-50 pound backpacks around. Should learn to park courteously and responsibly.

Plus if YOU don't check your mirrors before YOU start driving, YOU are putting yourself and others in danger. A strong wind can blow your mirrors out of adjustment. Much like not properly cleaning and de-icing your windows and mirrors means you can't see properly...yet people do it ALL the time. Make sure you tell them how they are intentionally putting someone in danger next time you see them not check their mirrors or clean their windshields and side windows before starting out next time. You should also check your oil, brake fluid, coolant levels and light functionality weekly if not daily.

Now if I ran around smearing their windshield wipers with petroleum jelly, something that is not 100% noticeable you might have a point. That's something people used to do, you'd be going down the road in the rain and hit the wipers and suddenly it's like looking through a constantly changing sheet of ice. And you couldn't clean it off your windows without something to cut it.

Blaming others for your inability to follow simple parking guidelines like stay between the lines and stay centered to your parking spot when they have to work around your mistakes.......is your problem. You are responsible for the vehicle you are driving and it's safe operation. I checked my mirrors every day leaving campus, because people bump them all the time when walking between vehicles on their way to class...annoying but not their fault if I smash into a car because I didn't adjust them to be useful. Course now the mirrors have been motorized long enough that most cars have it, even the older models students can afford....so they are stiffer and harder to move by design. Doesn't change your responsibility to make sure the car is road safe before you take it on the road.

Sorry, intentionally putting someone in danger (and those around them, who had no part in it) by messing with their mirrors is NOT the equivalent of being inconvenienced and not being able to get into your car. What you did is pretty irresponsible, regardless of what the other person did to you.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Yeah I think his car would have fit through much earlier on than when he gave up and left. But I think he hit the car next to him when he spun pushing the car on front.
It used to piss me off to no end back when I commuted to college and people would park too close to me, so much so that I couldn't even open my door enough to get into the vehicle. I used to mess with their side mirror settings and then fold them into their car if they were moveable just to give them irritation right back. Nothing like finding out you can't see shit out of your side mirrors once you're already in traffic. Much like not being able to get into your vehicle to get your books and shit out for class without some gymnastics and contortion. That's not even counting all the door dings and paint scratches those pricks gave my vehicle that had just been painted.

Yeah I think his car would have fit through much earlier on than when he gave up and left. But I think he hit the car next to him when he spun pushing the car on front.

It used to piss me off to no end back when I commuted to college and people would park too close to me, so much so that I couldn't even open my door enough to get into the vehicle. I used to mess with their side mirror settings and then fold them into their car if they were moveable just to give them irritation right back. Nothing like finding out you can't see shit out of your side mirrors once you're already in traffic. Much like not being able to get into your vehicle to get your books and shit out for class without some gymnastics and contortion. That's not even counting all the door dings and paint scratches those pricks gave my vehicle that had just been painted.

Just because she is pretty doesn't make it soft porn. Also what she is wearing isn't much different than a gymnast uniform apart from her exposed belly. I understand this may turn people on but so can a woman wearing a T-shirt and jeans. From a perspective of a woman I don't see the big damn deal.

>> ^rich_magnet:

I just thought I should point out the obvious: holy crap she's strong, flexible and has amazing balance.
She's also quite pretty and doing contortions in her underwear, all shot through plate-glass windows so yes, it is a beguiling display of the (soft) pornographic arts presented as holistic health practice.

I just thought I should point out the obvious: holy crap she's strong, flexible and has amazing balance.

She's also quite pretty and doing contortions in her underwear, all shot through plate-glass windows so yes, it is a beguiling display of the (soft) pornographic arts presented as holistic health practice.

@MaxWilder: It would eliminate the cash for favors system that corrupts all levels of elected officials!

How so? Corporations control mainstream media and news content. If they control the information, campaign dollars don't really matter. Public campaign financing (ie tax payer financing) just saves them the expense.

Public campaign financing just gives Wall Street puppets campaign camouflage. Not that it matters if people know who sponsors their candidates anyway. Plenty of OWS protestors will be voting for Wall Street politicians in the coming elections.

Condorcet voting is certainly better than first past the post, but it's just as corruptible. Especially when you can manipulate voters with polls and biased news coverage.

As for the rest of your post you spend a paragraph trying to contort something I said in one sentence. I said roll back to it's original limitations, ie follow the Constitution. Yes, the same document that also protects our right to peacefully assemble and protest. But we want to pick and choose what parts we want to follow and THAT has everything to do with the "stranglehold that mega-corporations have over the political spectrum".
Furthermore, with more focus on local and state elections, people might actually have a part in "democracy" instead of feigning it on a national level.

I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.