TakeYouToTasker

Jefferson's original draft listed the institution of slavery as a grievance against the crown.

That's the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time.

This skits around the issue nearly completely. The idea that we should work to fight cancer is in no way controversial, and doesn't make ugly charges, baseless or otherwise, against anyone in the viewing audience. The same cannot be said for what these players are doing.

Her comments were essentially that she was the Governor of a state which essentially borders Russia, which implies she would be likely to have a greater knowledge of some potions of the Russian state than, say, her counterpart in Florida, who would likely have a greater handle on Cuban affairs. She has a folksy way of speaking, which I don't find particularly endearing; but Tina Fey's parody Ralph Wiggamed a valid response into "My cat's breath smells like cat food," which isn't a reasonable interpretation.

It's amazing to me how many people attribute Tina Fey's parody to Palin herself.

Would anyone with detailed knowledge of the Jones Act be willing to weigh in on what gives the Executive Branch the authority to grant the waiver? I understand it's been done before, I'm curious about whether it's something legitimately in the President's purview or if it's simply a now entrenched usurpation of non-delegated powers.

But you don't get to make that call, and your personal offense does not somehow strip away protections on political speech no matter how opposed you are to someone's ideas. What you are doing is engaging in a special pleading fallacy because you find the philosophy of the Alt-Right particularly appalling, and you want the rules to be different for his ideas than for others. And that's not how this works. Finally, I'm not protecting Richard Spencer. The United States Constitution protects Richard Spencer just as it protects you, me, Colin Kaepernick, and everybody else who can lay claim to US citizenship; and the protections it provides are only good when they protect all of us equally, under the law.

The Alt-Right is a undeniably a political movement, and Richard Spencer is one of it's leaders. Of course he's a politician. And now you're getting it. He's making protected political speech, and is not violating anyone's rights. He's not even advocating for the future violation of anyone's rights.

In that circumstance, yes. Buts he's not an immigration officer, nor is he seeking a job as an immigration officer. He imagines himself to be a visionary, is growing a political movement, and is articulating the ideas and ideals of that movement. That is the context in which Richard Spencer exists.

He's leading a political movement. He's a politician. He's espousing preferred policy, and hasn't called for the violation of anyone's rights. You'll note that he doesn't advocate for the forced ejection of US citizens. That's how politics works.

Again, current immigration law is not immutable, and non-citizens don't have the right to be in America. If Richard Spencer, and a Congress full of like minded individuals, were elected tomorrow and changed all relevant laws, statutes, and policies to bring about his preferences regarding immigration he would not have violated anyone's rights.

Again, he's advocating policy preference. Current immigration law is not immutable; and non-citizens do not have the right to be in the country. He's speaking about his vision for the future, in which policy and law are changed to enable his preferences. And it's grotesque, but it's not a violation of anyone's rights.

He's a politician trying to grow a political movement. He's making his case for his policy preferences. He's saying "If I were in charge this is what I would do." He's not calling for anything illegal to be done, so no, he's still not advocating for the violation of anyone's rights. Further, coming to America would not bestow rights upon anyone. It would afford them the protection of rights they already possessed, and it would grant them privlieges of residence.

You have an odd way of being civil, what with your injection of ugly accusations in nearly every post you make. One might think you were incapable of making arguments without making baseless charges and acting like a ****ty person in general. I wish you'd stop doing that, because civility will either be a two way street or it won't be a street at all. Moving on, hopefully with a willing partner, no, they still wouldn't have the right to be here. They would have the privilege of being here, which is something considerably different, and can be revoked. One of the ways it could be revoked is with a change to our immigration policy to reflect the preferences of Richard Spencer. And that would be ****ty, and would not be in service of America's interests, but it would not be in violation of anyone's rights.

No, it isn't. It's unadulterated ugliness, but it doesn't violate anyone's rights. People do not have the right to immigrate to America.

You're shifting the goal posts. Besides, for a free speech advocate it shouldn't matter if someone is a "fine person" or a reprehensible racist in regards to protections of their speech. As an aside, I don't believe I've heard Richard Spencer call for the suspension of anyone's rights. I assume, given that you're comfortable with the Spencer example that you can source him calling for that suspension of rights?

Actually, Roosevelt was a contemporary thinker of the European leaders we went to war with; and I've yet to hear an American white nationalist espouse a suspension of democracy as one of their ideologys core tenets.

I don't think we fought against any 2017 American white nationalists in WWII.

If you believe public colleges are justified in restricting the speech of their students, then that's what you support.

So, this is different from your stance in favor of public colleges restricting free speech (a government entity violating First Amendment rights) while advocating for the speech of football players (not a First Amendment issue, but rather a workplace policy issue) how exactly? I mean other than the fact that you're in favor of the government restricting speech, and against businesses determining employee behavior at work, and Sessions has those two reversed.

Yup. He's that guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCxBh25xlpQ

It's for Congress to make, change, or repeal the law. It's the President's job to faithfully execute the law. As it stands currently, the Presidents job is to prevent foriegn vessels from going to Puerto Rico, unless the law, as written, states the the President may, under certain circumstances, suspend the law. Process is more important than individual outcomes.

Process is important. We don't want a President empowered to suspend laws when he feels it's a good idea. That's what Congress is for.

Good grief... This is too hilarious to not comment on. (*^*&%^$^#doesn't realize it's not the same flag, it's a similar yet different flag symbolizing something else. He probably thinks the Irish Flag is a desecration of the flag of the Ivory Coast.