TakeYouToTasker

What would you replace freedom with, Joe? Convince us that we would all be better served under your totalitarian dictatorship, under which we are required to conform to your preferences. And why should any American stand for a system which invents crimes to imprison political prisoners?

Then you live with them, Joe; and you argue against them. Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we can throw the perpetrators in jail. Banana republics and dictators behave that way. That is the way of Castro, and state media. I'll err on the side of freedom.

No, it makes them free Americans who should not be compelled by the government. Their justice should be metered out by the market place. We convict criminals of crimes, we don't invent crimes to manufacture criminals. As Greg said, prosecute those who have engaged in actual criminal activity; beyond that, the moral philosophy of human freedom isn't always pretty, but it's the very best thing we have.

It's not that he was convinced that the country was behind him, it's that he had casually disregarded the will of the people, and their right to self determination; and had made the decision to coronate Hillary Clinton as the next President. It wasn't important what the people wanted, because he had determined to subvert their will to his own legacy, and never dreamed his machinations would fail him, and destroy his legacy.

I would echo this sentiment. I've only ever seen one poster down here parrot Antifa rhetoric directly. Most lefties here, just as in every day American society, are good people who simply believe differently, and are currently being gaslighted by entrenched elements of the Deep State who are lashing out in a last ditch effort to protect themselves as they go through their death throes. On the inside.

They wear masks for exactly the same reason the Klan does.

No. The worst player was someone you've never heard of, who everyone you've listed in this thread beat for a final roster spot.

Dehydration, then starvation, then disease. Most wouldn't last long enough to become sick with anything.

Look at any other country who has endured civil war in a modern setting, then extrapolate. Do you think sort of thing can't happen here? If so, why?

Brace your souls for the fire.

Look at their policy preferences. Their desire is an activist government doling out a high minimum wage, universal healthcare, ect; in addition to being heavily pro-union and highly engaged in group politics. The only difference is that they want these things only for white people. They are essentially the European right, which in America is on the left.

I don't care about politics in-so-much as I work to understand the machinations of the individuals who would seek to rule us in order that I can best articulate and argue a moral philosophy that sets men free and opens the world to endless wonders and possibilities as a result. As a very young man I cut my "intellectual teeth", so to speak, on Swift, Machiavelli, Sun-Tsu, Locke, Orwell, Rand, Paine, Smith, Marx, Hobbes, the Bible, etc. and have been working to properly define the world in a way that makes the most sense to the realities of human desires and perception, and the realities of the human condition since that time. As a result, politics became my practical application of those desires. Some day I hope to become skillful at it.

The left is not going to like it when they reach the destination they're driving to. They're largely trapped in America's urban centers, and will lack access to food, water, electricity, and fuel. They'll be stuck in a death trap of their own creation. Add to that the fact that they've disarmed themselves, and will be subjected to roving street gangs; and the fact that even if they manage to get out of the cities, the conservatives they sought this war with are still armed. Yep. This won't go well for them.

The left's argument is that conservatives don't deserve a voice in government, and that agency heads should be activists for leftist pet issues, and anything less is a call for incivility. They are asking for a civil war.

This is an absolute red herring; and shifts the goal posts away from the actual topic. As such, I'll take it as your mea culpa.

This is whole untrue, and reeks of bias. Your position leads to a place which seeks to convict more individuals of rape, rather than convict more rapists of rape. Individuals and rapists are not synonyms, and a justice system which seeks to make convictions easier isn't metering out justice. The accuser does not "deserve to be believed". The accused does. Innocent until proven guilty requires the presumption of innocence. The same standard, the presumption of innocence, would apply to the person being accused of making false claims. A criminal statute which would of course be narrowly defined. Proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone knowingly and intentionally accused another person of rape would and should be an incredibly high bar to get over. More so, it's fair, and it's just. Which is what any decent person should want from it's justice system.

I have thought it through completely, for years. We're talking about a legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The same legal standard which would be used to convict a rapist or murderer. Absence of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a rape or murder is not evidence of someone knowingly and intentionally making false claims. It would, and should, be exceedingly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone made such a claim.

The penalty for falsely accusing someone should be identical to the penalty for commiting the act.

What the hell is happening in this thread?

I fixed that terribly broken post.

Kavanaugh would be a terrible pick for libertarians and conservatives. I think he's more than likely to "turn Kennedy" once seated. Kethledge is being touted as an Origionalist, though he's nothing of the sort. Amy Coney Barrett is an Origionalist, and a person of faith; and would torture leftists who would be forced to read opinions they deem to be "anti-woman" by fiat, written in a woman's own hand. She would be a fantastic choice.

Because why would you want a GP with a strong background in the sciences? I mean, they're only going to be providing primary diagnoses which determine your entire course of care, and prescribing medication. As long as they're really nice to you while they're providing sub-standard care everything should be fine. I mean, what could possibly go wrong? This, as always, is the problem with socialized medicine: There are three primary qualities to health care, and at any given time only two can be exercised because it is a finite commodity which responds to the laws of supply and demand. It can be high quality, it can be abundant, and it can be cheap. Canada has elected to exercise abundant and cheap. Enjoy seeing your witch doctors, who fortunately enough, have a pleasant bedside manner.

He's a bit of a prima donna and doesn't want to **** where he stores his used needles.

I never would have played football.

Agreed. As an aside, has any player increased their value this World Cup more than Yerry Mina?