TakeYouToTasker

The only people who would call me a racist are unthinking, abject morons who don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between racial and racist, lack the skill require to understand complex ideas, and reflexively vomit up baseless charges of racism in lieu of making an argument. People who do that are not good people. They down grade the conversation, and make it impossible to move forward or achieve any sort of racial harmony. You are the problem. As for your "rebuttal", no... that's not a compelling argument. Exactly one culture brought us the Enlightenment, which is a living moral philosophy as opposed to a fixed piece of history. The fact that you've defined it as a fixed piece of history, and then sanitized the brutal tribal history of the entire world outside of Europe paints you as a clown, which is why I said that no serious person should debate this with you. Not only are you not equipped to do the heavy lifting, you can't even handle the basic, high level elements of the conversation.

Internet Bill of Rights now.

Ah, the left... Insisting that we be judged primarily by our immutable features since time immemorial.

The federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing college education. Full stop. It has nothing to do with anyone's disabilities. No one, disabled or otherwise, should receive these sorts of benefits. These sorts of decisions should be made at the state level.

Because you benefited from it at the expense of everyone else. I find no value in it. The federal government should not be subsidizing the cost of anyone's higher education.

Notice I'm not trying to have a serious conversation with you, I'm simply advising others not to bother, because it's more productive discussing complex issues with a mop. And, no. You didn't "scald" anything. Your rebuttal was nothing more than calling people white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers, claiming they were wrong, and offering nothing at all in the way of an explanation. That's not actually a rebuttal, but rather the sort of intellectually vapid non-sense you'd expect from mentally defective race-baiter who doesn't understand the subject matter, and seeks to feel his was through challenging material rather than think about it; though in your case I'm not sure you had much of a choice, given your lack of ability. So, quite ironically, you come by your intellectual dishonesty honestly. So good on you I guess? As for how I feel about being de-bunked? Any person who values intellectualism, as I do, loves being debunked as it provides a genuine opportunity to learn, as making the proper argument is far more important than winning the argument. But you didn't do that, because as I said: you lack the requisite knowledge and ability. Now go ahead and underline and capitalize more words in lieu of a real argument. Oh, and call me a racist again. It worked so well for you last time. Lot's of people who read your prior efforts took your "work" very seriously, I'm sure. You're winning. Keep going.

Precisely this.

That entire letter reads like Grassley taking off his glove and slapping the DOJ with it for two full pages, and then presenting pistols.

You're adorable. Explain to me why in the world any serious person with even a cursory understanding of anything would find any value at all in discussing anything requiring an ounce of critical thought with an intellectual midget like yourself. If you can do that in a way which satisfies me without making a complete mockery of yourself, I may indulge you for laughs. However knowing that you can't in the most absolute sense imaginable leaves me content to laugh at you here whether you try, or not. Feel free.

No, he should not. Subverting the democratic process and attempting to rig a federal election, followed by an ongoing attempted palace coup is the gravest crime any individual can commit. It is a crime uniformly committed against every single citizen in the entire United States at the same time, denying every vote eligible person their basic right to self-determination, which is the very foundation upon which all our other rights rest. If we do not have the right to determine how, and by whom, we will be governed all other pretense of rights are stripped away. The former President deserves a noose, not a pardon; and if he gets the later, rather than the former there should be a violent uprising.

No, not with you involved it won't. You have the least nuanced understanding of world history I've ever encountered, and that's saying something. Tell us again how European tribalism undoes the great historical benefit of the Enlightenment and how a civil institution establishing permanent ownership and servitude are the same as criminal sentence metered out as the result of a criminal proceeding. This ought to be rich. Feel free to capitalize and underline random words as a substitute for intellectual rigor and substance.

Ah, good old CEMEX. I was wondering when we'd introduce them.

Securing the border is as much about stopping human trafficking and breaking up the international child sex trade as it is about preventing illegal immigration, as much of the transporting occurs through our southern border.

When someone makes baseless charges of racism against you, you don't indulge them. By indulging them intellectually you lend intellectual credence to their position by bringing it into the realm of legitimate discussion. What you do is exactly what the President has done. You tell them, and the whole world that they are shameful !@#$s who shouldn't be dignified.

The picture it's painting is that most of the Philadelphia Eagles are themselves racist, and are rejecting the President simply because he is a white person undoing the work of a black person. They can't see past race. The same goes for Lebron.

It's a culture war, and Trump is winning. You don't reach out to the other side on their terms. He has zero need to do so. Let them continue to pitch their fit as the country continues to galvanize against them.

Your argument is compelling, and you're winning hearts and minds for the betterment of America. Dismissively telling people who disagree with you politically that they are bad people, stupid and inbred always convinces people you have the right of things, and will absolutely be the silver bullet that turns middle America blue. Keep going. You're winning.

I myself am libertarian on most issues, but am much better described as a classic liberal. I think that most people don't know what libertarianism is, and have made lots of assumptions, and fail to realize that one can have a libertarian stance on a myriad of issues, and not on others. I think the main mistake most pure libertarians make is that the state has no just role. That's a lousy assumption, as it denies the reality of the human condition, which is tribalism. The pure libertarian will argue that a government is unnecessary to guard culture and tribe, as individuals will band together out of mutual self-interest to protect their rights/property. But it always breaks down when you ask them how they'll organize it, and if you can manage to pin them down on that, how they'll enforce the organization, and what the structure will be. It's much the same argument one has with anarcho-communists who reject government, but insist on some nebulous centralizing force through which all goods and services are first collected and then redistributed. They are having a logical disconnect where they don't understand what the genesis and role of government truly is, and how that contradicts their ideology.

That's great. What's your bumper sticker slogan?

I know you're being facetious, but I would love to start a conversation in which individuals are forced to defend the ideas expressed with bumper slicker sloganeering.

You can't have both, really. You either insist that all cultures need to be tolerated, which allows them to segregate and not assimilate, or you have assimilation.

No, because that's an absurd observation. Some level of immigration is a good thing for reasons cultural, genetic, economic, and technological. The melting pot has served America well by delivering to us the worlds best and brightest on our terms, and making them and their progeny into Americans while siphoning off the best parts of the culture they came from and adding them to our own in order to enhance it.

I expressed two separate and distinct ideas. Which one are you commenting on?

You're comingling two separate ideas: The concept of America as a melting pot which is best served by importing a controlled amount of immigrants over time, preserving our culture while adopting the best parts of theirs as our own; and that of a America as a cultural tapestry, which segregates, and leads to violence.

There's a culture war going on in America, and the Eagles are on the side that's losing, and losing badly. If any team that I followed did this, I wouldn't follow them anymore. These !@#$s are ripping the country in half. We will have a shooting war in this country during our lifetimes. He's not a serious lawyer. Quality lawyers have the ability and willingness to comprehend all sides of an argument. CT is an activist who studied law. Big difference.