TakeYouToTasker

It has everything to do with the topic being discussed, as further evidenced by your abject fear of answering the question directly. Was the United States morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

Process is more important than individual outcome, Joe. The process you're advocating for is dictatorship.

There is no such thing as "former CIA".

Huh... I missed this. Reader take note: Gary is pro-political violence, and thusly pro-civil war. Smart take, Gary.

Joe is a fascist who wishes to see an absolute and harsh dictatorship which conforms neatly to his world view, and punishes those who believe differently. He doesn't believe in First Amendment protections of any sort. Facebook was designed by the CIA to do exactly that.

Free markets and free trade are the same thing, Joe. Both speak to laissez-faire conditions.

I don't know that, given the list of charges they're facing, which will somehow include running a freaking terrorist training facility on US soil, kidnapping, and child abuse; that they'll ever see the light of day. And if they do, then you change the law so that the next time something like this happens, the punishment is more in line with what you believe is fair for the crimes committed. What you absolutely don't do is allow the President to act outside his Constitutional authority, and deport US citizens. You are becoming completely unhinged. You really do want to live under an absolute dictatorship, don't you?

Wouldn't it make more sense to, you know, try them in a court of law given that they've been arrested for what appears to be clear felonies? Why the hell would you send them somewhere where they can do more harm now that you have them in custody under legitimate circumstances?

If I don't think the people we elect to have discussions with the leaders of other nations having discussions with leaders of foreign nations is suspicious, I'm an idiot? Mmmhmmm.... Strong argument you have there.

You find it suspicious that the people we have elected to have discussions with other world leaders and dignitaries want to have discussions with other world leaders and dignitaries? I hope you have a full recovery from your recent brain injury.

So you're more of an "I get all my information from bumper stickers" kinda guy. Because the complexities of the world can be refined down to brief paragraph, and if they can't be, then they aren't worth knowing. AMIRITE?!?!?

The same as it's always been, Joe. Free speech has not been the norm for most of human history, and still isn't in most places around the world. It is a human freedom that was thousands of years in the making, and it is a lofty ideal that is worth fighting for; as it will always be challenged by would be despots. This has never changed and will never change.

The left's censorship is largely contained to the private sector, with the exception of universities. I could care less what they advocate for. They're free to hold bad opinions. The proper thing is to advocate for free speech and free press. Anything else results in a dystopian future you aren't going to like.

If censorship is permitted by the government, then censorship is permitted by the government; and you'll be subject to the whims of whomever is in charge of the government at any given time. You're advocating for the rule of man rather than the rule of law.

This, Joe, is exactly the reason I argue with you about the absoluteness of the First Amendment protections on speech and press.

This is commonplace enough that it's considered normal by the people tasked with patrolling the border.

Today I learned that individuals who vote with their feet are cowards.

The power of the question is demonstrated by your abject inability to address it directly. You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not sure where that 85% figure comes from, but given current antics I'd be willing to make an intuitive argument that a significant portion of the political left in this country says this because they agree with what the press is saying. If the press disagreed, you'd get to see what real fascism looks like.

Huh... I haven't seen a thread entirely devoted to a No True Scotsman fallacy in a while.

I have one in her early 20's. The trick is in having a strong, robust, ongoing dialogue with your kids about the world; and allowing your own life and choices to serve as an example of how to best live. It doesn't hurt to raise them with a Christian moral foundation either, and to keep them involved in walking that walk.

No, you answered lots of different questions, but you skirted around my one very direct question. I didn't ask about what the UN's opinion was, or whether it was authorized by Congress, or any of the other things you referenced. I asked you one very simple and direct question which requires a simple yes or no answer: Was the United States morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War? My one requirement for having dialogue with anyone is that they approach the discussion with intellectual honesty. You haven't done so yet. Please answer my question, and then we can continue.

It was challenged many times, and the courts determined that literally no one had standing to make the challenge, so there was no legal remedy.

Alex Jones doesn't have that right. Neither do you, I, or anyone else.

Nothing will end the war in the short term. Now, with what has been exposed, it has to be fought otherwise we won't have a country. What is important is winning the war in the long term in order that we have a chance to hand our legacy of freedom down to our children. For that to happen we need to put the gangsters behind bars, otherwise we'll just keep on doing this forever.