TakeYouToTasker

Which of your rights have the major media infringed upon, Joe? Your right to hear exactly what you want, and not to have to hear opinions which differ from yours? Your right not to have your feelings hurt by being lied to?

So, you're actually arguing in favor of a despotic caste system, under which those in charge are completely insulated from any actual fall out for heinous wrong doing, up to and including suspending the basic fundamental rights of the people the propose to rule by nullifying their right to self determination and subverting their entire form of government?

Actually, Joe, it doesn't. It's not that the authorities are neutered: it's that they are expressly forbidden from taking actions which infringe of the protected freedoms of the citizens they serve. By design. And that design does not include backdoor vigilantism when the government actually performs their just duties and protects/doesn't infringe those rights.

You first. I'm happy to answer any questions asked by individuals being intellectually honest. Demonstrate that you are so. Do you believe that the United States was morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

Do you believe that the United States was morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

People are allowed to be wrong, Joe. People are allowed to do and say things you don't like. People are allowed to believe differently than you. They are allowed to purchase mediums which allow them to lend power to their various ideologies. People are also allowed to lie. Even if you think lying is wrong (and I would agree), people are allowed to not tell the truth. Even about important things. Unless they are under oath, or are committing the legal definition of fraud (no, Joe, they aren't committing fraud), people can lie. We don't put people in jail for being wrong, or lying. Legitimate governments don't take political prisoners. And, as we've covered before, the Constitution expressly forbids what you're suggesting.

But that's not the question I asked. I asked you if you feel that the United States was morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War.

Which is why I do it that way. I tell them that the next time I'm in, if I have them for a server, I want to be able to give them more. I will tip up to 30% for excellent service. My standard tip for poor service (and I absolutely differentiate between poor service, and screw-ups that are not the servers fault, or are just unlucky, like a back of the house issue, a spilled drink, etc) is about 8%, because I understand their job, and how they're paid, and I don't want to leave them what amounts to nothing for their time.

A bit of my background in order to establish my credentials: I used to own and operate restaurants through my 20s and into my early 30s. I always leave something, though if it's less than I would leave for average or excellent service, I explain to the server, in private conversation, why it was less. If the experience with any establishment truly angers or offends me, I ask to speak to whoever is in charge, and explain in great detail why they will be voiding 100% of my bill, and I leave. This has happened twice in my life.

Any individual with a PR department or publicist does this. Humans are all very flawed creatures; and celebrity attempts to white wash these flaws for monetary and power reasons. This is the case with all organizations, governments, etc. I'm not sure why people are so surprised by this kind of thing.

Do you feel that the United States was morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

Exactly. Devise policy which incentivizes people in destitute poverty to flock to your state, which happens to have weather which is comparatively kind to people sleeping outdoors, and provide them no place to live. What the hell did they think was going to happen?

Let's walk this through: As you said, no one cares about Manafort. They used to care. He was the smoking gun. It was Manafort who was going to prove that the President colluded with a foreign government to influence the outcome of his election. But now no one cares. Because it was a lie perpetrated by the coup plotters in order to drum up outraged public sentiment and delegitimize our duly elected President, and now that things are being finalized, it has been demonstrated that it was a lie. So now we're on to the next lie. A drummed up story that has already been circulated 3, maybe 4 times. There has already been hours of Congressional testimony about this. Of course, you're right. We will hear about it for the next few months. Not because there's an ounce of meat on this particular bone, but rather because the coup plotters are continuing to attempt to destabilize our government, and un-do legitimate democratic principals in order to protect themselves. Don't help them do it.

I'd say that exception was largely voided by England when they assisted in rigging our Presidential election and helped attempt a palace coup.

http://www.ppic.org/press-release/homelessness-in-california-linked-to-growing-gap-between-rich-and-poor-study-finds/ The State of California disagrees with you; and although they have spun their findings into a pro-Marxist rant, the data is accurate. The State of California insists on importing vast amounts of poor people from third world nations, lacking education, or skills into their state. These individuals come here destitute, and they remain destitute. They take jobs from the poor who were already working here, who were among the most at risk in the American population. Combine this with some of the most expensive zip codes in the nation, San Diego weather, and a taxpayer funded hand-out culture and you have a recipe for an explosion in homelessness.

There are no "friends" or '"allies" in geo-politics. There are only overlapping interests; and the resulting outcomes of shifts in foreign policy changes what those overlaps are, and who they are with.

The NYPD is not a racist institution. The racial makeup of the department nearly mirrors the demographics of the city. According to US Census data and a 2007 study on diversity in policing 28% on NYC is Hispanic, as is 24% of the NYPD; while 23% of NYC is black, as is 16% of it's police force. You might not like it, because you prefer a narrative which allows you to make sweeping unfounded charges of racism, maligning good people serving the needs and safety of the citizens of New York; but the truth is that the policy of the NYPD as related to simple possession, is to simply tell the offender to put it out, or to confiscate and send the offender of their way. Those who are actually arrested are arrested because when they are caught smoking (a crime which allows police to question and demand identification) they are found to have outstanding warrants, they are non-compliant with the officer, or they are actually distributing and are pled down to a lesser offense (the justice system does them a huge favor). These are facts.

No, because in many cases these children weren't crossing the border with their parents. They were either kidnapped, or sold to the traffickers by their parents who couldn't afford them, as is common. So what do you do with 572 kids who you've rescued from a short lifetime of sex slavery? It is a VERY good question.

It is a human trafficking issue. The President is fighting against actual modern day slavery, and you're standing in direct vocal opposition to him. In this argument, you're the man swinging the bull whip circa 1850. Own it.

Inequality does not mean inequity. Only someone interested in an agenda, as opposed to the truth, would present isolated data absent any context or other supporting facts or data. In addition to other information presented, I'll offer that the overwhelming majority of simple possession charges which are prosecuted are actually plead down to possession from heftier charges involving distribution, are instances where the offender is using in public, or are individuals who are known criminals rather than first time offenders.

I'm guessing so. He's a veteran, and I've yet to see a proposed form of meritocracy which denies veterans the franchise. As an aside, what issue do you take with the franchise being something one has to earn, as opposed to being something one inherits, so long as it isn't denied based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc?

Why are you conflating the citizenry with Congress and/or the President?

That's a deflection. I mean actual relegation into permanent poverty and a near guarentee of starving to death for several entire continents.

Well, for starters, I'd prefer not to starve the entire third world.

The Administration will (rightly) reject and refuse the order, and the Court will conclusively strike down the opinion with firm language once Kavannaugh has been confirmed.