shirgall

Yes, he stood on principle, but he drew interest by criticizing policy and offering alternatives. And, as for the rest, you are right. I don't have anything to do with the Libertarian Party any more for pretty much the same reason.

Political parties are not an argument, they are an organization of people with (presumably) common goals. They are neither valid or invalid, but their statements might be, and their actions might be moral or immoral too.

In legal terms, the preferred positive defense against a libel claim is truth, so I'm sure you are right. I think most people are treated well here, unless they are abusive, and I think most arguments are conducted with gusto but are polite unless they get personal.

When I was a party official, it was difficult to do any outreach with the NAP in and of itself. Policy statements drew eyeballs and discussion. Theory was boring and ignored.

Unfortunately, shelf life is important here. By the time political hot topics are covered, because they draw visitors, there's not going to be much time for a rebuttal of a video that will be forgotten by next week.

Might want to include a direct quote, lest you be accused of:

Full disclosure: I work for Microsoft, but not on this project. Microsoft put out an AI bot on twitter that would communicate with millennials similar to other chat bots in the past like ELISA would do. It was intended to learn from its conversations and synthesize new and interesting things to say by lifting elements from replies and combining them with some pre-existing rules. Some vandals came along and seeded the AI with a lot of racist, violent, and otherwise ugly things to say and eventually got it to start replying to people with distasteful things to say. Gone are the days when you can put out something cool or interesting and people would be polite enough not to subvert it immediately.

This principle is called "felony murder" and the idea is that the responsibility for a death falls to the one that initiated the actions that directly lead to it. In an even more seemingly outlandish scenario: You and your buddy hijack the Qik-E-Mart, the guy behind the cash register pulls out his gun and kills your buddy... who goes to jail for murder? You do. Because you coldly planned to endanger the life of another and as a result of executing that plan a death resulted.

I'm reminded of Robert Graves's King Jesus and his assertion is that the establishment of Christianity removed the feminine tone of the church and restored a male-dominated one.

It's pretty clear that they do, since Sharia is a recipe for a state.

For want of a better term, the Molenbeek Ghetto deserves some scrutiny here. If you establish a zone that has its own culture, even its own courts and enforcement of mores, are you inviting a cultural war with the surrounding area? Going back to Claudius, there was a Roman problem with Jewish ghettos that established their own laws, boundaries, mores, and even ethics. It didn't lead to violence, directly, but it sure lead to conflict.

Who do you think made the rule that deserters get shot a law?

While US Marines are obligated to follow lawful orders, they are also told they must disobey unlawful orders. The demonization of Lt. Col. Oliver North for not disobeying his orders is still in the memory of career military.

Police have a duty to apprehend malefactors and who defines malefactors? The politicians that make laws do. In particular politicians make law that define swathes of people as criminals especially laws where the "victim" is the state (as opposed to victims who are real people).

I think it's because the recent terrorism is about the desire to impose sharia law (which certainly is a form of state) by subduing the [future] dhimma.

I was trying to be wry, but the coverage of a black man supporting Trump seems to be oddly missing considering what he did to support the narrative that Trump supporters are violent.

https://twitter.com/sopandeb/status/711320555912339457 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/protestors-block-ariz-road-stop-trump-rally-article-1.2570353 http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/273673-trump-protester-assaulted-at-rally#

Anyone see any media coverage on the black Trump supporter that helped take an unruly protester dressed like a KKK member out of rally?

At a minimum, Hungary looks to be worth saving, from my view ten thousand miles away.

Consider this: because the government is willing to pay, or finance, certain kinds of school programs, the costs of those programs has increased faster than the other price increases. Simple increase in demand might be enough, but the government also helps schools finance expensive building upgrades or entire programs that schools might not otherwise offer. Similar price pressure occurs when government pays for, or helps finance expansion of medical coverage *and* on the other end mandates expensive qualification processes for drugs, procedures, medical personnel, insurance companies, and so on. There's a entire industry made around dealing with Medicare classification codes. There's huge expensive hurdles getting a drug or medical device approved by the FDA. Sure, there's some price pressure in the US because R&D costs can actually be passed on to consumers in the US (and insurance companies are happy to pay huge costs for some drugs because they can just increase their premiums to match). An enormous amount of pressure has been put on the system to make "single payer" seem desirable in the long run. The cost increases in the US are manipulated to be the way they are.

Have you considered the possibility that it's very expensive *because* the government pays for it?

Are people really saying that if you've read a book that you are forever beholden to its influence? How many of us have a friend that read Atlas Shrugged but are not objectivists?

You are right, Trump is probably spinning it to appear reactive in nature.

Isn't it more like "treat the protesters the way they are treating everyone else"? Welcome everyone, but if they are jerks, there's no need to be nice to them.