Carl Phillips: Big Lies and Reconciliation

[AgentAnia]

Dr. Phillips is back! (I was starting to worry...)

Big Lies and Reconciliation | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the reconciliation part. When it comes to ANTZ, I cannot forgive. Will not. Ever.

 

[Kent C]

Sorry I have to disagree with what he considers 'big lies' and 'miscommunications'. Totally political and it's rather obvious.

 

[Anjaffm]

I fully agree that the ANTZ are telling one big, huge, humongous lie - with the objective of keeping themselves as the recipients of the never-ending flow of money.

The phenomenon at work here is the Big Lie: If someone tells a minor lie, it is not all that difficult to show people it is wrong. But if they go big, and tell an enormous lie (or body of lies, because it is impossible to isolate a single lie at that level) they might just get away with it. People are willing to believe that someone might tell a small lie. But they often cannot conceive that anyone would be bold enough to tell an enormous collection of blatant lies and stick with it, and so they just cannot accept that it is happening. The thinking goes, “if this were all lies, someone would catch them at it and point it out, of course, so it cannot be all lies.” This means, ironically, that when someone does catch them at it and point out the lies, people refuse to believe the claim.

We are seeing this effect all the time, even here on ECF.

And what exactly might be wrong with this here:

Those of us in this space get used to the fact that the “public health” people do not actually care about people’s well-being — or even about their health, that (many) tobacco companies are the right side of this issue, and that most of what most people “know” about low-risk tobacco products is lies

I fully agree with every word.
Remember, for instance, the oh-so-horrible-pictures of mouth cancer? Shown all over the place to keep people smoking instead of switching to oral tobacco? "Ah, better to risk lung cancer than to have your face cut away.... "
Remember the Snus ban in Europe? Where Sweden is the only country where Snus can be sold? And Sweden is the country with the lowest rate of smoking AND smoking related cancer?

Oh yes, they are lying alright. To line their own pockets. The "health" of other people is the furthest thing from their minds.

And I love this comment:

....The original BIG LIE(S) will be uncovered when the consequent even bigger lies become obviously lies in the eyes of the man-in-the-street.

 

[Fulgurant]

Sorry I have to disagree with what he considers 'big lies' and 'miscommunications'. Totally political and it's rather obvious.

Phillips has a tendency to do that on occasion: he'll be talking swimmingly about e-cigs and public policy, and then he'll refer, in passing, to something else that has a lot of partisan baggage attached to it. He makes those references artlessly, as if there were no controversy attached to them, as if his (often liberal-leaning) conclusions about those incidental examples were self-evident and beyond dispute.

You could argue that his occasionally tone-deaf references to liberal partisan positions needlessly alienate some of his (more conservative leaning) readers, but personally I think it's a good thing that he holds liberal positions on other matters, or if you prefer, that he's sympathetic in general to liberal positions. Why? Because the vast bulk of what he writes about e-cigs might come off as staunchly right-wing/libertarian to a liberal audience. The man is a fierce believer in individual liberty, but he is also a Keynesian economist.

Although that combination might strike some as self-conflicted, it also means that he can't be easily dismissed as an ideologue. And his arguments about e-cigs truly are excellent; he's the Scientific Director of CASAA, after all. Please don't deprive yourself of his insight because of one impolitic rhetorical flourish.

(Well, actually two impolitic rhetorical flourishes in this case, if I'm reading you correctly, but you get the point. )

 

[Spazmelda]

Phillips has a tendency to do that on occasion: he'll be talking swimmingly about e-cigs and public policy, and then he'll refer, in passing, to something else that has a lot of partisan baggage attached to it. He makes those references artlessly, as if there were no controversy attached to them, as if his (often liberal-leaning) conclusions about those incidental examples were self-evident and beyond dispute.

You could argue that his occasionally tone-deaf references to liberal partisan positions needlessly alienate some of his (more conservative leaning) readers, but personally I think it's a good thing that he holds liberal positions on other matters, or if you prefer, that he's sympathetic in general to liberal positions. Why? Because the vast bulk of what he writes about e-cigs might come off as staunchly right-wing/libertarian to a liberal audience. The man is a fierce believer in individual liberty, but he is also a Keynesian economist.

Although that combination might strike some as self-conflicted, it also means that he can't be easily dismissed as an ideologue. And his arguments about e-cigs truly are excellent; he's the Scientific Director of CASAA, after all. Please don't deprive yourself of his insight because of one impolitic rhetorical flourish.

(Well, actually two impolitic rhetorical flourishes in this case, if I'm reading you correctly, but you get the point. )

This is sort of the logic I take with Siegel as well. Seems like many of Siegel's commenters, and many here, remain upset with him for sticking to the SHS ideas he spent so much time studying. I don't have much of on opinion about that. I haven't really read up on it enough to know where I stand, but it's entirely plausible to me that the dangers of SHS were overstated. Anyway, it's good to have someone like that on the side of ecigs whether you agree with their other views or not, as like Fulgurant says, they are harder to dismiss by the ANTZ (at least not without a lot of cognitive dissonance).

I didnt focus on the liberal slant in the phillips article. i should go back and read again. I'm a liberal myself, maybe a left leaning libertarian or a libertarian leaning liberal. I don't know. Whatever. For this reason, some of Bill G's statements rub me the wrong way. Not enough to dismiss what he's saying, obviously. I definitely respect him and appreciate all the work he does, but I don't think it's usually helpful to throw a jibe in about "Obama's FDA' or "Obama Appointee". It's fine if you are only wanting to sway republicans and libertarians or people who already hate Obama, maybe, but for those of us who see problems with both sides of the political spectrum, and for those who might be liberal or democrats, it could be taken as an excuse to ignore what's being said as coming from "the other side".

I read the Carl Phillips thing yesterday and it resonated a lot with me. I'm very conscious of sounding like I'm just a small step away from raiding the tin foil box to make some fancy headwear. When I first started reading here I really did think some of this was going too far with the conspiracy ideas. Reading about snus and smokeless tobacco lies is what really convinced me. And it made me furious. When I was smoking I did my best to stay away from research about smoking. It made me nervous and guilty, so I avoided it. Partly because of that I only took away the big messages that we were fed. I did truly believe that smokeless tobacco was as bad or worse than cigarettes. Once I started reading the literature it became readily apparent that that was a complete fabrication, and more than that it didn't even make logical sense. I still don't really see it as a conspiracy. I think people are doing what they do, looking out for themselves. Some are convinced that the end justifies the means, so it's okay to tell little lies. IMO, a lot of it is self-perpetuating. Small lies that everyone takes as truths, get built upon by bigger lies, until no one even notices anymore.

^idle ramblings from my brain

 

[Spazmelda]

Oh, and as for the main topic of the blog, truth and reconciliation. Hm, I'm more cynical I guess. I think the antis will win no matter what. If/when the lies become to cumbersome to cover up, they will rewrite history and successfully pretend that this is what they were after the whole time. If they manage to kill THR they will turn it into a success as well. It's simple really. Lol.

 

[Anjaffm]

When I first started reading here I really did think some of this was going too far with the conspiracy ideas. Reading about snus and smokeless tobacco lies is what really convinced me.

Not only you
I am one of the people also who went "Holy crap!" when reading up on things - after I noticed the obvious lies that were told about vaping. Because there, I knew the truth.

And a lot of formerly un-political vapers in the German vapers forum woke up to the stream of lies that we are being fed, just like I did.
And not just about smoking and vaping. Believe me....

When I was smoking I did my best to stay away from research about smoking. ... Partly because of that I only took away the big messages that we were fed. I did truly believe that smokeless tobacco was as bad or worse than cigarettes. Once I started reading the literature it became readily apparent that that was a complete fabrication, and more than that it didn't even make logical sense.

Yup. Same here.

I still don't really see it as a conspiracy. I think people are doing what they do, looking out for themselves. Some are convinced that the end justifies the means, so it's okay to tell little lies. IMO, a lot of it is self-perpetuating. Small lies that everyone takes as truths, get built upon by bigger lies, until no one even notices anymore.

Of course it is not a "conspiracy". It is a big huge business.
People getting paid big money to say what they say. And they are being told what to say by those who pay them that big money.

In German we have a saying "Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing" = roughly: If somebody feeds me bread, then I will sing the songs that he likes.

They are being paid to lie. So they lie. Being paid to tell lies is a cushy job after all. Who would want to give that up? Especially for such measly, completely unimportant things as the health of human beings, or a few human lives?

 

[Spazmelda]

Not only you
I am one of the people also who went "Holy crap!" when reading up on things - after I noticed the obvious lies that were told about vaping. Because there, I knew the truth.

And a lot of formerly un-political vapers in the German vapers forum woke up to the stream of lies that we are being fed, just like I did.
And not just about smoking and vaping. Believe me....



Yup. Same here.




Of course it is not a "conspiracy". It is a big huge business.
People getting paid big money to say what they say. And they are being told what to say by those who pay them that big money.

In German we have a saying "Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing" = roughly: If somebody feeds me bread, then I will sing the songs that he likes.

They are being paid to lie. So they lie. Being paid to tell lies is a cushy job after all. Who would want to give that up? Especially for such measly, completely unimportant things as the health of human beings, or a few human lives?

Ha yeah, and now I'm stuck scratching my head trying to figure out how 'being paid to lie' is different from 'conspiracy'. lol.

I guess conspiracy implies sinister figures, huddled in dark rooms, planning nefarious plots; erased hard drives, murder, and filtering money to off-shore bank accounts. Maybe I read too much...

I think opposition to THR is much less deliberate, or started that way, at least. It's more of a "my livelihood depends on this, so this is what I'm going to believe no matter how hard I have to ignore reality" than "I do my overlord's bidding". Probably most _real_ conspiracies happen this way though, so perhaps the distinction is useless.

 

[Kent C]

Fulguranthillips has a tendency to do that on occasion: he'll be talking swimmingly about e-cigs and public policy, and then he'll refer, in passing, to something else that has a lot of partisan baggage attached to it. He makes those references artlessly, as if there were no controversy attached to them, as if his (often liberal-leaning) conclusions about those incidental examples were self-evident and beyond dispute.

I don't think it's just a 'tendency'... and typically elitist with the 'self-evident and beyond dispute'. Think Global Warming.

You could argue that his occasionally tone-deaf references to liberal partisan positions needlessly alienate some of his (more conservative leaning) readers, but personally I think it's a good thing that he holds liberal positions on other matters, or if you prefer, that he's sympathetic in general to liberal positions. Why? Because the vast bulk of what he writes about e-cigs might come off as staunchly right-wing/libertarian to a liberal audience.

I don't think it does, but then liberals are sometimes confused on 'right wing vs. libertarian' - basically they make no distinction. I don't like couching libertarian ideas in liberal or conservative terms in order to persuade. See my earlier comments on the poison of compromise. Moderation is the attempt to be liked by all people - an impossibility and a drag on those who operate on principles.

The man is a fierce believer in individual liberty, but he is also a Keynesian economist.

That's basically a contradiction in terms. If he's a 'fierce believer in individual liberty, does he believe in the right to bear arms? That a person or company or corporations have property rights? Does his excuse for Obama's 'mistake' mean that he thinks that some people should provide health care for other people? By what individual right does that work? Or does he, like all liberals, just redefine 'rights' out from the context that begets the concept?

Although that combination might strike some as self-conflicted, it also means that he can't be easily dismissed as an ideologue.

"Ideologue" has a few definitions. However, I'd say he doesn't have a consistent basis of philosophy. I don't think being consistent is necessarily an 'ideologue', but if it is, I don't think that's a bad thing Because someone without a consistent base, can be allured by whim or good lies. IOW, a pragmatist. And frankly pragmatists can't be trusted.

And his arguments about e-cigs truly are excellent; he's the Scientific Director of CASAA, after all. Please don't deprive yourself of his insight because of one impolitic rhetorical flourish.

(Well, actually two impolitic rhetorical flourishes in this case, if I'm reading you correctly, but you get the point. )

It's why I wouldn't support CASAA directly. I've read some of his other stuff. I'm not that impressed. He hedges on many points. See my comment on the other post today.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Spazmelda:

With regard to "conspiracy" or not, I think the main difference is:

Anybody who believes in what people say is a "conspiracy theory" is open to ridicule and anything he / she says will be poo poo'd. After all, the person is seen as a nut case, or at least made out to be one, by their opponents.

If you know - as we do - that you are not opposed by some "conspiracy" but instead by a multi-million-dollar business - then the case is different. The "grants" from Big Pharma to the various alphabet soup "public health" "organizations" can be proven. Nothing foggy about that.

Ergo: the employees of the various alphabet soup "public health" "organizations" get paid money to say what they say, to do what they do. A proven fact. And no ifs and buts about it.

And, sorry, if anybody actually thinks that those people believe - in their heart of hearts, and to this day - in the "dangers" of "third-hand smoke" or the "dangers" of e-cigarettes, then please take a look at the-tobacco-control-industry

They are saying what their masters - who hold the purse-strings - want them to say. Pay them to say. Nothing more and nothing less.
The health and lives of human beings pay no role in that grab for the contents of their masters' purse. None whatsoever.

......
edit:
the link about the tobacco-control-industry is long. But it is well worth reading.
And yes, in the beginning, there were those who believed in a good cause. But after all that could be accomplished was accomplished, then they left. And turned to THR. And those who are left now... well, read for yourself .... it makes very good reading indeed.
And it also explains why those who are left will stammer.. and lie.. and twist the truth... and do and say all this completely nonsensical crap. They are trying to hold on to their cushy jobs. No matter what the cost - the cost to others.

 

[Fulgurant]

^idle ramblings from my brain

You ramble extremely well.

I have to agree. Both Bill G's occasional potshots at the Left and Phillips' occasional shots at the Right make me cringe. Even when I agree with those incidental opinions, there's a split-second image in my mind of countless indoctrinated partisans snorting and walking away, dismissing otherwise water-tight arguments regarding e-cigs and the health industry. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Perhaps naively, I believe that most people can come to see the rightness of our position here, both specifically with respect to e-cigs, and generally with respect to corruption and malpractice in the public health industry, but a lot of those people need to be eased in. As Phillips argues, there are decades of establishment propaganda to strip away before anyone can glimpse the truth.

But realistically we're never gonna have advocates and champions who are entirely apolitical. So it's good that our champions are at least diverse in their partisan political leanings.

 

[Fulgurant]

I don't think it does, but then liberals are sometimes confused on 'right wing vs. libertarian' - basically they make no distinction. I don't like couching libertarian ideas in liberal or conservative terms in order to persuade. See my earlier comments on the poison of compromise. Moderation is the attempt to be liked by all people - an impossibility and a drag on those who operate on principles.

I'd prefer that our ideas weren't couched in liberal or conservative terms too. Your point about moderation is a non-sequitur, though; I'm not advocating moderation; I'm advocating that we appeal to and work with people on the basis of our specific cause (vis-a-vis e-cigs), that we basically shelve all of our disagreements about other, partisan-touched issues.

That's pragmatism without moderation, and without compromise.

That's basically a contradiction in terms. If he's a 'fierce believer in individual liberty, does he believe in the right to bear arms? That a person or company or corporations have property rights? Does his excuse for Obama's 'mistake' mean that he thinks that some people should provide health care for other people? By what individual right does that work? Or does he, like all liberals, just redefine 'rights' out from the context that begets the concept?

You'd have to ask him. Based on what he's written in the past (Does anyone really believe in freedom? | Anti-THR Lies ), I'd guess that he's for all of those individual rights, but they are, once again, irrelevant to our cause vis-a-vis e-cigarettes.

Certainly the man is a fierce believer in individual liberty in that arena, which is what matters for our purposes.

It's why I wouldn't support CASAA directly. I've read some of his other stuff. I'm not that impressed. He hedges on many points. See my comment on the other post today.

See your comment where? Please provide a link.

 

[Kent C]

The biggest 'purse' in the US is the US Government. They control the purse, they can fill or empty the purse and they can even create money to put in it, or tax other purses to put it in theirs. Your so called 'masters' only bribe the people who hold the purse, in order to get into it. The people who have the control of the purse are the real masters. Without that control, BP and BT would have to compete in a free market.

And people use BP and BT as well as any "conspiracy nut". "Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage" - exactly what those who use BP and BT think.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Dr. Phillips is back! (I was starting to worry...)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the reconciliation part. When it comes to ANTZ, I cannot forgive. Will not. Ever.

We know the truth, we know the lies, the perpetrators, the earners, the shills and the weak, we know.

Karl Jenkins - "THE ARMED MAN" - Sanctus - YouTube

 

[Anjaffm]

Your so called 'masters' only bribe the people who hold the purse, in order to get into it.

not quite.
The paid shills now even (mis-)use taxpayer's money to further their aims:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...492048-cities-being-paid-ban-x-stevevape.html

We know the truth, we know the lies, the perpetrators, the earners, the shills and the weak, we know.

oh yes we do.

By the way:
I could care less about politician A or politican B.
They all lie. To serve their own aims and to fill their own pockets. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In my home country, we have a multi-party system. Not only two big parties. That gives us a small illusion of making a difference with our votes. A small illusion. As any party / politician who comes to power will "evolve" into what is generally known / understood as "a politician".
I have seen it happen, over the last 30 years. With a formerly idealistic small, young party who spoke for freedom, for peace. Now, they are the biggest proponents of the Nanny State, with "freedom" of the individual being the furthest thing on their minds.

In Germany, we have a saying "put them all in a sack and hit it with a stick. And you will always be hitting the right person".

That is my opinion on politics and politicians. What matters to me is who furthers my current cause (in this case: the freedom to vape and not have it banned / "regulated" as medicines). Anything else is unimportant to me. As it is all "one big soup" anyway.

Yes, you may call me "disillusioned". Or maybe not. Because I never had any illusions about politics in the first place.

 

[Kent C]

Fulgurant:I'd prefer that our ideas weren't couched in liberal or conservative terms too. Your point about moderation is a non-sequitur, though; I'm not advocating moderation; I'm advocating that we appeal to and work with people on the basis of our specific cause (vis-a-vis e-cigs), that we basically shelve all of our disagreements about other, partisan-touched issues.

I agree with sticking to the cause. But he doesn't do that. And the 'moderation' is attempting to appeal to people who are not friends of liberty. A deceit, if you really believe otherwise (I'm not convinced) and an agreement when you do.

That's pragmatism without moderation, and without compromise.

Pragmatism, by definition, is a compromise on principles. Too much to discuss on that here. But if you don't understand that, we don't have much to talk about... lol. If you do, then we do, but perhaps in PM.

You'd have to ask him. Based on what he's written in the past (Does anyone really believe in freedom? | Anti-THR Lies ), I'd guess that he's for all of those individual rights, but they are, once again, irrelevant to our cause vis-a-vis e-cigarettes.

Certainly the man is a fierce believer in individual liberty in that arena, which is what matters for our purposes.

Kinda like how the ACLU upholds civil liberties in speech and press ....only Unlike the Institute for Justice, I might add, that takes on all rights violations.

The article was not that good of read. And more of the 'leanings' even when he claims he isn't leaning. He's 'interesting,' but for me, only in a way that interests other liberals. An 'open mind' that really isn't. A bit like Bill O'Reilly.


See your comment where? Please provide a link.[/QUOTE]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/492751-canada-wild-west-e-cigs.html#post11296697

It's the ....ecigs are 'not necessarily good for you, but better than ... x..." type comments that imo, 'gives' too much to the enemy and another attempt of being 'objective' but not being objective at all, but more 'moderate'. Is this who we want on our side? I don't. There's much more of my thinking on this and CASAA if you get into the 'rent seeking' posts I've made here (you can't see them - they're in the veteran's forum), but again.... too much to discuss here.

 

[Fulgurant]

I agree with sticking to the cause. But he doesn't do that. And the 'moderation' is attempting to appeal to people who are not friends of liberty. A deceit, if you really believe otherwise (I'm not convinced) and an agreement when you do.

Whether our allies on the e-cig front are friends of liberty with regard to other issues or causes frankly doesn't concern me. If we win on this one topic, which is an archetypal struggle for personal liberty, then we will have taken a step in the right direction generally. (Edit: I misread you here, so please disregard what comes before this parenthetical. Let us say instead that we agree on the above-quoted point.)

Pragmatism, by definition, is a compromise on principles. Too much to discuss on that here. But if you don't understand that, we don't have much to talk about... lol. If you do, then we do, but perhaps in PM.

In politics, that's generally true, but in principle, pragmatism is simply practicality. A practical approach to problems may require compromising your principles; it may not. In this case, I sense that you and I simply have an irreconcilable difference with respect to what constitutes compromise.

I think compromise requires substantive concessions on the e-cig issue. And I'm not seeing anyone at CASAA, least of all Carl Phillips, who advocates for any such concessions. I will acknowledge this much: his blog post from yesterday wasn't terribly informative and it was written in such a way that it is bound to annoy at least half of his readers. It's rife with liberal narratives asserted as if they were established truth, unassailable.

But the bulk of his blog isn't just good, in my view; it's flat-out awesome. I can forgive him his partisan prejudices on other matters. Those prejudices, to my eye, don't reveal themselves very often. In fact, I tend towards the belief that Phillips isn't a liberal partisan; rather, I imagine that he simply gets his news from liberal sources. No biggie if you don't agree.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/492751-canada-wild-west-e-cigs.html#post11296697

It's the ....ecigs are 'not necessarily good for you, but better than ... x..." type comments that imo, 'gives' too much to the enemy and another attempt of being 'objective' but not being objective at all, but more 'moderate'. Is this who we want on our side? I don't. There's much more of my thinking on this and CASAA if you get into the 'rent seeking' posts I've made here (you can't see them - they're in the veteran's forum), but again.... too much to discuss here.

To say that e-cigs are 99% less harmful than cigarettes ("The risk is so low that it can just be rounded to zero for any practical (honest) purpose.") isn't a concession or a gesture towards mealy mouthed moderation, in my view. If anything, Phillips is a firebrand, prone to wantonly, even gleefully immoderate talk on the subject (see here for an example).

(This is great too: CASAA's Letter to University of Kentucky Regarding Ellen Hahn)

It is not my intention to get into a war with you over this, Kent. If you don't like Carl Phillips or CASAA, then that's obviously your prerogative. It's entirely possible that you know something I don't. I'm just honestly confused; it seems that you and I are very similar in ideological terms, but you appear to interpret what's going on with e-cigs and CASAA/Phillips far differently than I do.

I do thank you for the link, by the way, and I agree with your comment: Phillips' quote in the article in question could be twisted by our opponents. But almost every statement is twistable.

I look forward to seeing your discussions in the Veteran's forum, sometime in the distant future.

 

[AgentAnia]

....That is my opinion on politics and politicians. What matters to me is who furthers my current cause (in this case: the freedom to vape and not have it banned / "regulated" as medicines). Anything else is unimportant to me. As it is all "one big soup" anyway.

Yes, you may call me "disillusioned". Or maybe not. Because I never had any illusions about politics in the first place.

Thank you for saying this. And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

 

[Kent C]

Fulgurant:

me quote:

Pragmatism, by definition, is a compromise on principles. Too much to discuss on that here. But if you don't understand that, we don't have much to talk about...

In politics, that's generally true, but in principle, pragmatism is simply practicality. A practical approach to problems may require compromising your principles; it may not. In this case, I sense that you and I simply have an irreconcilable difference with respect to what constitutes compromise.

Pragmatism isn't simply practicality. For one to declare that 'something works' - it has to be asked 'according to what standard?'.... introducing principle into the mix - not very 'pragmatic' The common refrain: “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.”, is simply not true. If it didn't work in practice, then the theory was wrong. By the same token something that works in practice has to have a theory behind it, but principles is where to start. Hence, compromising principles for the sake of sounding PC or gaining favor of the regulators or liberals who live for 'we know what's best for you' big gov't, is not where to start.


We're back to the 'me quote' above, so I'm outta here on this subject. Thanks for keeping it civil.

 

[Stubby]

Pragmatism isn't simply practicality. For one to declare that 'something works' - it has to be asked 'according to what standard?'.... introducing principle into the mix - not very 'pragmatic' The common refrain: “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.”, is simply not true. If it didn't work in practice, then the theory was wrong. By the same token something that works in practice has to have a theory behind it, but principles is where to start. Hence, compromising principles for the sake of sounding PC or gaining favor of the regulators or liberals who live for 'we know what's best for you' big gov't, is not where to start.

I'm assuming you are a libertarian, which is all fine and good. It's a nice idea aside from the fact that it is a theory that doesn't work in the real world. It sounds nice though and makes for some good sound bites.

CASAA and Phillips are dealing with the hand that has been dealt us, not an ideology La La land. To not support a group that is fighting for your rights because you have a disagreement with one of its board members shows just how far down the rabbit hole ideology tends to drag people. No doubt there will be some feelings of moral superiority as you watch us go down in flames.

Libertarians have a basic misunderstanding of the role of government and the tensions that are inherent in a democracy. There is always going to be an ongoing conflict between individual absolute freedom (something that has never existed and never will) and the need to work for the common good. There is always going to be compromise. That is the nature of the beast and is unavoidable. The question isn't if there is going to be a line, but where the line is drawn. Deal with it or start stocking up on those tinfoil hats.




It's why I wouldn't support CASAA directly. I've read some of his other stuff. I'm not that impressed. He hedges on many points. See my comment on the other post today. [/QUOTE]

And that is a very good reason why if we where to follow your advice we would lose. What you are preaching is a true blue no compromise ideologue and that is a sure way to get marginalized. Might as well stock up on tin foil hats as that is what everyone but a few of your like minded ideologues will think.