[AUgrad]

To be frank, I find nothing good comes from lies

I re-read the article and all I see is opinion. Which facts are in question?

[bimmer]

A lowly web columnist calling himself "Sartre" ... pretentious!

[mrsmith]

He states an opinion and supports it by an "appeal to emotion", the out-of-context quote, and the extraordinay use of a Thoreou quote as a defining example of a "Founder"'s precept.
A Freeper, seeing the mis-use of Jim's statement, brands the author a liar and is unimpressed by the essay.

More to my point:
The last two posts from "your" side that I responded to:
a lewrockwell.com article
Askel's pravda post

Both have a glaring lie in them, the Lewrockwell lie about the Patriot act is particularly odious- it subverts the efforts of critics of the act to an attack upon something that isn't in the law. That effort should be used to address the real faults of the law if those are faults are to be addressed.

Sure, opinion pieces keep the issue in play, but an appeal solely to emotion is not persuasive: Tom Paine's emotional language is backed by accepted facts.

And an opinion piece that includes dishonesty actually does damage to the position it purports to support!