You (Or should I say Jon Stewart) trying to be funny by making a stupid reference to the 1773 Boston tea party, in a 2008-2011 Boston Tea Party VS "99%", is well, in a word stupid.

Yes Bush did bail out Wall Street. Which I didn't agree with. However He is no longer in office, and I'm sick of all these people blaming others. Under Obama:

Patriot Act was EXTENDED and added to.
NASSA was shut down.
He has run up a higher debt then Bush did.
Got us in another war.

Bush was not my favorite. But fuck wake up Obama. At least Bush was up front with his "crusade". Obama promised all these things and delivered the exact opposite. I mean come on, If I voted for him, I would be sooooo fucking furious at him.

Fun Fact: Bush is more loved in Africa then Obama. Bush created the largest oceanic preserve. Look into it.

>> ^hpqp:

EPIC TEAPARTY BURN.
>> ^Ryjkyj:

And one last thing: Who do you think was responsible for cleaning up Boston Harbor in 1773?

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Special cleaning crews are being brought in to clean up after the trash messes left all over by the "99%" costing the city $$$.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.


@Yogi,

not my opinion, i rolled over and let your mom get a few words in, she's the expert/professional

>> ^packo:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.

technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate
accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"
civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context
all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual
and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources


This is your opinion based on your experience as an expert on what? My opinion is based on that of a crazy person...badda bing badda boom shut the fuck up.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^packo:
@Yogi
again, its all just conjecture without proper context... whether your conspiracy theory leans one way or the other...
its like seeing the picture of the two soldier and the detainee from Iraq... where if you cut out either soldier, the picture takes on a very different meaning... 1 soldier's gun appears to be held threateningly towards the detainee... the other soldier is giving the detainee water... remove the context of either soldier and the picture becomes misleading... in that case both directions
and in regards to this video... without context, we're left to our own prejudices to determine the context the video falls, so then it's simply chance if our prejudice aligns with the actual context of the video... people on both sides could use this to mislead
again, not attacking one side or the other... just the failings of the presentation

Not really since you're citing a war. I'm talking about civilians and police who are charged with protecting them. There is a much greater burden of proof to be addressed whether or not these women posed a threat to anyone. So there's some context right there...civilians, unarmed, not in a warzone.


technically there's rules to warfare too, and saying which are stricter is a whole other debate

accusers must prove guilt, guilt != not being able to prove merit in this instance : in regards to criminal cases... rephrased someone isn't guilty without proof to their guilt, being unable to prove innocence isn't the same as being guilty... ie, "you robbed the bank", "no i didn't", "can anyone attest to your whereabouts during the time of the robbery?", "no i was alone", "aha, you must be guilty then!"

civil i believe at best you'd be able to hold police officers accountable in regards to them not following proper procedure... which again, this video in no way demonstrates because (again) it was lacking context

all of that get's muddier with the Patriot Act and dealing with masses of people as opposed to the individual

and to summarize, this video doesn't qualify as evidence of misdoing, one way or the other... for the protesters or for the police... i'm sure the police have debriefed/taken statements from officers involved and if those statements/documentation was held up against this video as some sort of proof, no court (civil/criminal) would find much of a case... again back to context and corroberating sources

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^Duckman33:
I'll leave this here too:
http://i.imgur.com/EZLaA.jpg

He didn't say the US didn't gain anything by it, but not even Hitler murdered 3000 of his own countrymen to build a stronger case against the Jews. It especially doesn't make any sense when you consider that they had to sell the idea of WMDs in Iraq and fabricate as many connections between Saddam and Osama as possible. If they really plotted to bring those buildings down and had the competence to keep it so well hidden then why did they get the wrong fall guy?

There are no such thing as secrets now anyway. Given the scale of 9/11, the coordination with the planes striking the building...any conspiracy must have had a rather large number of people involved. Any conspirator must have known there was a massive risk that any one of these people would have second thoughts about murdering thousands of civilians or improperly covering their tracks. The chance of discovery is colossal and I can't see how the benefits of this stunt would ever outweight the risks. Succeed and you get the Patriot Act. Fail and you doom your party/political ideology for the next century or two.
Razer: "Plane hit building. Building fall down."


I posted that for something to think about, not as a plausible theory as to why or how 9/11 happened. But please, go on with your bad self. And I will state for the record again since you guys REALLY don't seem to get it, I never said Bush had anything to do with 9/11. In fact if you read my comments in this thread it's pretty obvious I'm not of that line of thinking in this matter. But by all means guys, keep putting words in my mouth.

>> ^Duckman33:

I'll leave this here too:
http://i.imgur.com/EZLaA.jpg

He didn't say the US didn't gain anything by it, but not even Hitler murdered 3000 of his own countrymen to build a stronger case against the Jews. It especially doesn't make any sense when you consider that they had to sell the idea of WMDs in Iraq and fabricate as many connections between Saddam and Osama as possible. If they really plotted to bring those buildings down and had the competence to keep it so well hidden then why did they get the wrong fall guy?


There are no such thing as secrets now anyway. Given the scale of 9/11, the coordination with the planes striking the building...any conspiracy must have had a rather large number of people involved. Any conspirator must have known there was a massive risk that any one of these people would have second thoughts about murdering thousands of civilians or improperly covering their tracks. The chance of discovery is colossal and I can't see how the benefits of this stunt would ever outweight the risks. Succeed and you get the Patriot Act. Fail and you doom your party/political ideology for the next century or two.

Razer: "Plane hit building. Building fall down."

bah most governments I cannot help it that Norway are cool

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

>> ^westy:
Its also interesting how governments use events like 911 as excuses to pass laws that ultimately cripple a society and are entirely counter productive for the population but beneficial to a small minority ( patriot act) < also interesting that they name the laws and acts something that makes it hard to argue against them without sounding Un amercan>

Ahem, that should be 'government' at least in the contemporary world. Yeah the Nazis enacted similar things after their 'terrorist' attack, but to say 'governments' in the modern sense as if to blanket everyone with the same duvet is overlooking the obvious case of Norway, where no such extreme measures were taken, and a rational dialogue began immediately with the idea that they would not let the terrorists dictate the rules of the game.
Osama said the attack would cripple the US economy and destroy your freedoms. The American reaction? Spend trillions of dollars to 'feel safer' and restrict its citizen's freedoms. Aside from hunting him down and killing him the US government gave him EVERYTHING he wanted.

>> ^westy:
Its also interesting how governments use events like 911 as excuses to pass laws that ultimately cripple a society and are entirely counter productive for the population but beneficial to a small minority ( patriot act) < also interesting that they name the laws and acts something that makes it hard to argue against them without sounding Un amercan>


Ahem, that should be 'government' at least in the contemporary world. Yeah the Nazis enacted similar things after their 'terrorist' attack, but to say 'governments' in the modern sense as if to blanket everyone with the same duvet is overlooking the obvious case of Norway, where no such extreme measures were taken, and a rational dialogue began immediately with the idea that they would not let the terrorists dictate the rules of the game.

Osama said the attack would cripple the US economy and destroy your freedoms. The American reaction? Spend trillions of dollars to 'feel safer' and restrict its citizen's freedoms. Aside from hunting him down and killing him the US government gave him EVERYTHING he wanted.

well the wings on a plane do visually go up when the plane flies unless its a fighter jet.

As for asking questions why would you discourage people asking questions and wanting answers presumably most questions that are not totally absurd can be given reasonable answers.

911 and conspiracies in general are a good way to practice exorcising critical thought intemrs of evaluating what asurtions are valid or crazy (regardless of the ultimate truth) and identifying logical falicies and thinking about the world around you , its also far more entertaining than watching your average Hollywood film .

ether way You don't even need a conspiracy to see that the government is and was massively incompetent , and the forcing us all to go to war on lies should be enough in itself to get people in government jaild for life.



Its also interesting how governments use events like 911 as excuses to pass laws that ultimately cripple a society and are entirely counter productive for the population but beneficial to a small minority ( patriot act) < also interesting that they name the laws and acts something that makes it hard to argue against them without sounding Un amercan>

WT7 had some government offices in it. CIA, Secret Service, Ongoing SEC investigation against large banks.

False flag attacks happen whether you believe in them or not. The CIA does coup attempts on a regular basis. Hitler planned the Reichstag fire. The burning of the Reichstag was so convenient, the Nazis passed their version of the patriot act, used it as an excuse to increase the power of the executive branch. I don't know who did 9/11, but I know who didn't do it!

Susan Lindauer:
...
I got indicted for protesting the War in Iraq. My crime was delivering a warm-hearted letter to my second cousin White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, which correctly outlined the consequences of War. Suspiciously, I had been one of the very few Assets covering the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years. Thus, I was personally acquainted with the truth about Pre-War Intelligence, which differs remarkably from the story invented by GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

More dangerously still, my team gave advance warnings about the 9/11 attack and solicited Iraq’s cooperation after 9/11. In August 2001, at the urging of my CIA handler, I phoned Attorney General John Ashcroft’s private staff and the Office of Counter-Terrorism to ask for an “emergency broadcast alert” across all federal agencies, seeking any fragment of intelligence on airplane hijackings. My warning cited the World Trade Center as the identified target. Highly credible independent sources have confirmed that in August, 2001 I described the strike on the World Trade Center as “imminent,” with the potential for “mass casualties, possibly using a miniature thermonuclear device.”

Thanks to the Patriot Act, Americans have zero knowledge of those truths, though the 9/11 Community has zoomed close for years. Republican leaders invoked the Patriot Act to take me down 30 days after I approached the offices of Senator John McCain and Trent Lott, requesting to testify about Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 investigation and a comprehensive peace framework that would have achieved every U.S. and British objective without firing a shot. Ironically, because of the Patriot Act, my conversations with Senator Trent Lott’s staff got captured on wire taps, proving my story.

You see, contrary to rhetoric on Capitol Hill, the Patriot Act is first and foremost a weapon to bludgeon whistleblowers and political dissidents. Indeed, it has been singularly crafted for that purpose.

The American people are not nearly as frightened as they should be. Many Americans expect the Patriot Act to limit its surveillance to overseas communications. Yet while I was under indictment, Maryland State Police invoked the Patriot Act to wire tap activists tied to the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, an environmental group dedicated to wind power, solar energy and recycling. The DC Anti-War Network was targeted as a “white supremacist group.” Amnesty International and anti-death penalty activists got targeted for alleged “civil rights violations.”
...
I cannot forget. I cannot forget how I was subjected to secret charges, secret evidence and secret grand jury testimony that denied my right to face my accusers or their accusations in open court, throughout five years of indictment. I cannot forget my imprisonment on a Texas military base for a year without a trial or evidentiary hearing.

I cannot forget how the FBI, the US Attorneys Office, the Bureau of Prisons and the main Justice office in Washington — independently and collectively verified my story— then falsified testimony to Chief Justice Michael Mukasey, denying our 9/11 warnings and my long-time status as a U.S. intelligence Asset, though my witnesses had aggressively confronted them. Apparently the Patriot Act allows the Justice Department to withhold corroborating evidence and testimony from the Court, if it is deemed “classified.”

I cannot forget threats of forcible drugging and indefinite detention up to 10 years, until I could be “cured” of believing what everybody wanted to deny— because it was damn inconvenient to politicians in Washington anxious to hold onto power.
...

I would say that in your case, @blankfist, that the burden of proof is on you to prove that raw milk can be used and offered safely.

This may be a shaky analogy, but it's similar IMO. to the 2nd Amendment, I'm very pro-gun, but there has to be SOME regulations, you just don't put certain weapons out there in the open market for any tom dick and harry who has the cash to buy. The potential for those weapons infringing on the life, liberty and happiness of others far outweighs the freedom to buy said weapons. Sure there may be plenty of people out there who would use such weapons wisely...but we don't just take their word for it, do we?

If it weren't for gov't regulations, we probably wouldn't even have ingredient lists or nutrition information on our food. Much of our quality of life today is because of these gov't regulations, not because of the free market. Personally, I don't want to turn back the clock and live in the old west days where if someone shoots me, It's MY fault for not dodging quick enough or for not shooting him first. Free market says slavery works too. Free Market says child labor is awesome. Free Market says sweatshops rule! We as a people have said time and time again that some things are more important than profit at all cost and that just because you can do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Were you asleep in History class?

If you believe otherwise, the burden is on you to prove it. It's a judgement call, you can't just blindly de-regulate everything in the name of liberty. News flash, the patriot act has very little to do with patriotism. The fair tax is anything but fair, and freedom isn't free. Just because Liberty is in the word libertarian, doesn't make it so.

This is another case of someone envisioning their version of a utopian world and working backwards. Well in a perfect world, there are no abortions, so obviously we have to ban abortions. Well in a perfect world, there are no poor people, so obviously we gotta make life more and more difficult for poor people so they are motivated to not be poor. In a perfect world, we don't need gov't looking over our shoulder because we get along fine on our own, then obviously we need to reduce gov't.

It' just doesn't work that way.

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.

So I'll ask again, which part is it you object to? That CO2 levels are rising? That CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, aka warming on average? That CO2 increases are not due to human activity? That global temperatures are actually rising? What exactly?!

BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right? There was once competing theories of the structure of our galaxy - heliocentric and geocentric. There was of course the third belief that the earth was actually flat, supported by an elephant standing on a turtle. The existence of the geocentric and other models do not disprove the heliocentric model in the slightest.

You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy. Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change. It's like a priest who wouldn't dare try to reinterpret/retranslate passages in their holy texts in light of scientific data that proves the whole world is flat supported by an elephant on a turtle theory is BS.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:
I call 'em as I see 'em but try to limit personal attacks (I hope). Those with opposing viewpoints to mine are usually variants of communists, socialists, anarcho-libertarians and even liberals, aka Socialist-Lite.
What precisely do you object to about the theory?
The worldwide power grab in the name of "safety". It's odd how we pick our battles, don't we? The same guy who hates the Patriot Act as limiting his freedom may simply hand it over when told it will extend the life of a dolphin. Or vice versa.
Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!
PROOF PROOF PROOF. For every theory there is another opposing it, and a third plausible theory that has nothing to do with the original argument.
Remember, credibility is the burden of those trying to change society to suit their vision.

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.
The best evidence doesn't point to a looming crisis. TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Do you know where you hear that the most? Commercials. Artificial countdowns. HURRY! THIS SALE ENDS SATURDAY! It's a sales tactic to get people off their butts and ACT, without thinking.
You guys can just write me off as another one who refuses to see THE TRUTH(tm)
Provided I don't get hit by a natural-gas-powered bus, I'll be here, you'll be here and the earth will be here and doing fine 50 years from now.
Climate change alarmist alarmed they’re wrong

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:

I call 'em as I see 'em but try to limit personal attacks (I hope). Those with opposing viewpoints to mine are usually variants of communists, socialists, anarcho-libertarians and even liberals, aka Socialist-Lite.

What precisely do you object to about the theory?

The worldwide power grab in the name of "safety". It's odd how we pick our battles, don't we? The same guy who hates the Patriot Act as limiting his freedom may simply hand it over when told it will extend the life of a dolphin. Or vice versa.

Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!

PROOF PROOF PROOF. For every theory there is another opposing it, and a third plausible theory that has nothing to do with the original argument.

Remember, credibility is the burden of those trying to change society to suit their vision.

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.

The best evidence doesn't point to a looming crisis. TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Do you know where you hear that the most? Commercials. Artificial countdowns. HURRY! THIS SALE ENDS SATURDAY! It's a sales tactic to get people off their butts and ACT, without thinking.

You guys can just write me off as another one who refuses to see THE TRUTH(tm)

Provided I don't get hit by a natural-gas-powered bus, I'll be here, you'll be here and the earth will be here and doing fine 50 years from now.

Climate change alarmist alarmed they’re wrong

>> ^marbles:

I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?


My point is victimhood isn't part of what constitutes a crime. My larger point is you're constantly using "is" when what you mean to say is "should be". A crime is a violation of law. You may believe that there shouldn't be laws against activities that don't have a particularized victim, but that doesn't mean prostitution isn't a crime, it means you think it shouldn't be a crime.

It's the difference between telling someone "I am the richest man in the world," and "I should be the richest man in the world."

>> ^marbles:
We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.

So anything you feel entitled to, you're entitled to?

Moreover, primitive man had lots of impulses -- rape women that were caught their fancy, steal from people too weak to stop them, kill people they didn't like, etc. Then you get to the more grand delusional impulses, like "I speak for the Sun god, so do as I say or he'll burn you for eternity after you die".

The feeling of entitlement to enclose and deny the use of portions of nature to others likely only came about after agriculture, and even then largely in the form tribal land ownership, not individual ownership.

>> ^marbles:
Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.

It seems to me that there's a lot more than 2 options. Over here in my way of seeing the world, property is just a social convention. I am my body, I don't merely own it.

Ownership is meaningless when there's no one else around. Ownership is meaningless if there's no societal impetus to adhere to the convention of property.

So on the score of "self-ownership", I mostly think your relationship to your body is qualitatively different from the relationship to inanimate objects you might acquire through labor or other economic interactions. Taking my property is stealing, taking my body is kidnapping. Damaging property isn't the same as violent assault on a person. Trespassing is not equivalent to rape.

>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...>> ^marbles:
LOL@“We're being polite”
Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.


I used the pronoun "we" because I think that paragraph was descriptive of several of the people who engaged with you here, not just me.

I think you misunderstand my meaning when I labeled it as being "the objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty", I'm mostly just pointing out that the definition you're presenting is just one view of the concept, and not the defining conception of liberty. I'm not pigeonholing it and dismissing it, I'm just saying that the proper phrasing here is "This is what liberty is to me", not "This is what liberty is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong".

My view of liberty is no less valid than yours, and if you assert that it is invalid without demonstrating even a rough working knowledge of what I (or even liberals generally) actually believe, then it's you who's pigeonholing and dismissing things, not me.

As far as "the guy warning about black and white thinking", I'm mostly just in favor of thinking. It seems to me that if you go around believing that there are some simple, arbitrary rules that govern all of human morality, and refuse to entertain any skeptical critique of the nature or validity of those rules, then that's not thinking.