TakeYouToTasker

You asked me when I left, and I answered "when I was seven", which is a perfectly reasonable response to your question. If you wanted to know what year, you should have asked what year. Again, I'm not a mind reader, you muppet. The move was in late 1982 - early 1983. Following that, we lived in the poor Hispanic neighborhood until 1995.

I'm what? You're a idiot. You're asking me questions. I'm humoring you and answering them, because I'm interested to see where you're trying to take this. Perhaps you should ask different or more specific questions if you're looking to extract specific information. It's not my job to read your mind.

When I was seven my father broke his back and we moved back east to live with my grandparents while he healed and went through a career change through a vocational program. Two years later, he took a job as an intern making $12k a year as a computer programmer, while my mother worked selling Avon while she raised my three siblings and I. From there, until I moved out of the house at 18 to go to college, we lived in a poor Hispanic neighborhood in a largely shuttered factory town. I was only the second member of my family to attend college. Actually, I was almost seven. I'm pretty sure I was still six when the move happened.

I grew up North Las Vegas, in a very poor predominately black neighborhood. What are you getting at?

Are you asking about the poor or about people being denied rights?

No, voluntary sterilization is a better option. Here is my proposed solution: People make mistakes, so you get a one child forgiveness. You may receive government assistance if you have a single child you are supporting, however if you have any more children while on assistance, you are given a choice; you lose your assistance, or you can keep it for the benefit of your multiple children if you submit to sterilization.

Again: The Constitution vests the enforcement of our immigration laws with the Federal government; which is logical and just given the entire purpose of the nation state. The States and the People reserve all rights, duties, and policies not otherwise prescribed for themselves. There is no such enumerated Federal responsibility or authority over transgender bathroom issues. As such, that's an item left to the states. You really have no understanding of how the Constitution works, do you?

The Constitution vests the enforcement of our immigration laws with the Federal government; which is logical and just given the entire purpose of the nation state. The States and the People reserve all rights, duties, and policies not otherwise prescribed for themselves.

He's also signed one stripping funding from sanctuary cities.

The Red Sox are my first team, Bills are 1a. I'm also a die hard Bruins and Celtics fan.

I can live with that.

I'm a Boston sports fan.

This.

This is a reasonable place to begin the discussion. I can fully understand the "legal until life begins" argument, and although my position is that it begins at conception, if someone can make a scientific non-arbitrary case that it begins later, like at say viability, I could accept that assuming that viability was sliding based on technological advances.

"It's Life had no right to be started" is the dumbest, most logically inconsistent argument I've ever heard. The child's life didn't exist until it began you nitwit. But, once it began, the child's life became under it's own ownership, and possessed it's own independent rights. At which point, the mother is a mother, not a supreme dictator of whether or not murder should be done. However, you've also argued that a life has no right not to be ended. I'd love to see you reconcile that assertion with your declarations about the supremacy of American freedom. Idiot

No. I was also firmly in this camp from the moment he announced his candidacy.

Wrong. Freedom does not include the right to end another life. That other life is also entitled to it's rights, the first and foremost is the right to life.

This is a morally bankrupt position which endorses murder by convenience. The truth of the matter is that you believe a lifestyle of irresponsibility and depravity is desirable, and value loose women more than human life. The further truth is that while a woman does have the right to her own body, she does not have the rights to the life of another once she has engaged in an activity of which a known consequence it the creation of life.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, there were no "Southern States". There were 13 colonies, each of which allowed slavery at the time the Constitution was written, though some had begun to experiment with gradual paths towards abolition. That aside, the 3/5 provision was as much a boon in a popular election format as in an Electoral format. Try again.

Are you at all familiar with the purpose of the Electoral College?

The zip-ties, duct tape, and collection of slightly used rape whistles strewn about his back seat.

I was speaking to deadbeat dads (and mothers for that matter)

- Requiring anyone using government assistance to raise more than one child to be sterilized, or lose their benefits. - The reassertion of societal values which shamed single motherhood, and shamed sex outside of long term committed relationships - The decoupling of state benefits with multiple children - Easing the adoption process - Hard labor sentences for absentee fathers when caught I could go on.

Stop trumpeting you supposed "non partisan" world view, it's hollow and empty when you have no idea where others stand on issues, and you assume them to be partisan without the knowledge of their posting histories. To wit: you assume that those whom oppose your view that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President are opposing you because they are partisan. You're wrong about that 100%. Further, I'll simply ask that you stop responding to my posts if you can't be bothered to answer the questions I posed to you earlier.

No, I have many other choices.