TakeYouToTasker

To clarify, what LA just did is domestic terrorism, and if you want to start a campaign to silence him, I support you.

He expressed a bad opinion. He did not incite specific and targeted violence. There's a very real legal difference, Joe. I don't think Chris Cuomo is a good person, and I have no respect for him, but what you said, and what he said are entirely different.

That's not freedom of speech. You don't have the right to incite targeted violence.

Freedom is dangerous, Joe. But not nearly as dangerous as fascist dictatorships with empanelled ministries of truth.

So, gatorman is Chris Cuomo. Huh... That actually explains a lot.

Actually, you can, and it's justified if you're being threatened. Shoving someone to the ground is assault. You don't get to assault people, and make them fear for their safety. If you do, you risk being shot for engaging in dangerous anti-social behavior. People are not obligated to take whatever sort of beating you feel is justified by street justice, and can defend themselves with lethal force. The moral of the story is don't !@#$ing assault people.

That's great question. I'd love to answer it, and have an actual dialogue with you about it. But first I'm going to insist that you answer my question. I'll pose it again, as a courtesy, to give you the opportunity: Was the United States morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

There's part of the equation which hasn't been discussed, and it's the darkest and most difficult part. As I mentioned prior, like every other multi-billion dollar industry, the human trafficking industry has lobbyists who have purchased politicians in order to protect their interests. These politicians are on both sides of the aisle, and they will vehemently oppose any sort of legislation which would implicate them in a modern day slave trade. Once dollar number one is taken, there's no way out; and the amounts of money are unfathomable which makes for comfortable handcuffs. The dollars are off-shored in South American banks.

I was conflicted when it happened, but in retrospect it was right right decision both for this year, and for the next.

I'm glad you're back. Was the United States morally justified in entering into the Vietnam War?

Aside from some of the data which was highlighted in the statement? What data are you looking for specifically?

I agree with you 100%, but there's a reason why such legislation has never been passed.

That was my point: In the immediate aftermath we had no idea what his intentions were. None. Antifa is violent. They assault people with weapons all the time. Heather Heyer herself was there armed with a baseball bat and wearing a shield and helmet. She was there prepared to do violence. It is reasonable to leave room, in the aftermath of an incident like that, for the possibility that the driver was uninvolved outside of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, was assaulted, and tried to flee, accidentally killing someone in the process. This is why we wait for facts to come out, and for the law to take it's course. If you're criticizing Antifa, this is the first time I've seen you do so, though it's a good start. But here's the thing: Their body count isn't lower, it's higher. And they aren't acting in response to a violent movement; they're acting in response to free speech, conservatism, and capitalism. Their protests include no-platforming conservative speakers at universities and elsewhere by starting violent riots. Here's an example: Neo-Nazi's are not doing things like this. No one is turning anything around. Antifa (violent communist militants) showed up to have a street war with neo-Nazi's. Full stop. No one who showed up for that hot mess armed was an "innocent", and no one who showed up at all, save law enforcement, was at all intelligent. Heather Heyer included. When animals show up to do battle with other animals they invite tragedy upon themselves.

She's the violent Antifa member on the far right of the picture who showed up to a "peaceful protest" with a shield, helmet, and baseball bat.

What will you do when the charges start to come fast and furious, Gary?

At the time those posts were made the law was giving the benefit of the doubt. That's how the law works: innocent until proven guilty. People are tragically, and accidentally killed with motor vehicles all the time, and enough information hadn't emerged to make a determination if the driver had intentionally run people down, or if he was attacked by a violent mob and panicked, which is an entirely different circumstance. I'm sorry if my measured judgment didn't comport with your zealous rush to pitchforks and torches. Further, those posts were all taken out of context, as you well know, because you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest. Mine, as I've already explained, was an intellectual critique of identity politics and critical theory; and a very valid one at that. The only person doing any selective spinning here is you. No one here has defended any rhetoric of neo-Nazi's, beyond saying they enjoy the same rights to freedom of speech and assembly that you or I do. No one here has defended any of their violence in any capacity. You, on the other hand, have gladly taken up torch for violent militant communists who pose just as much of a threat as the neo-Nazis ideologically, only their numbers are exponentially greater, and they have a much more voluminous record of actual violence.

Exactly correct.

This is a dishonest characterization. Antifa is an international organization which has it's roots in Germany. It styles itself after Soviet communists who opposed Hitler. Even their flags are the same: Further, they don't try to hide it. They spend time handing out communist literature, and adorn themselves in clothing featuring the hammer and sickle. And while they may have "only" been throwing eggs this time around, they engage in open violence regularly, fully admitting that open violence is part of their mission. You're simply wrong here. This is an intellectual critique of the realities of identity politics. When you attempt to impose a narrative which others people in order to advance a racially driven agenda, don't be surprised when, after you've politically segregated people by race, those you've named the enemy begin to identify by the trait you've assigned to them as a primary identifier band together for their own advantage. Our own history of racial oppression should have taught us that, but apparently we're going to be doomed to repeat it in reverse.

You aren't kidding.

On one side, the bad people are a handful of neo-Nazis. On the other side, the bad people are militant communist agitators. I'd say these things are roughly equivalent.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-working-end-human-trafficking/

I'll take this on, because it's something I care deeply about. You may not realize it, but you are making an argument on behalf of modern day slavery. Real slavery, not unlike the kind we had in America in 1850, where individuals are owned as property. The United States is a global hub of human trafficking: First, two articles, one from a left leaning site, one from a right leaning site: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ana-davila/drug-cartels-where-human-trafficking-and-human-smuggling-meet-today_b_7588408.html  https://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/02/the-trafficking-of-children-at-the-mexican-border-001504697.html Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Mexico  Various government and international organizations: https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/library/2011/human-trafficking-sex-tourism-and-child-exploitation-southern-border   https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/protect/trafficking http://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Mexico.pdf https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/human-trafficking This administration has, as a central pillar of policy, systematically gone about the process of eliminating modern day human trafficking, not only in the United States, but globally. You aren't hearing about it in the news, but the amount of arrests related human trafficking and pedophilia under this Administration is unprecedented by magnitudes; and it's all available in the public record. The situation at our southern border is entirely bound to this. Families entering the country through our check points are not separated. The people who are separated are adults traveling with children who work to avoid our border check points. They are separated because that's how children are trafficked into this country, and it's a massive problem, not to mention the largest human rights issue we face in America today. I'll go on to make a further point for your consideration: Human trafficking is an annual multi-billion dollar industry; possibly larger since it's a black market which is nearly impossible to track. Like any other massive global industry, there are massive business operations which co-ordinate and own the lion's share of the marketplace. And like any other multi-billion dollar industry operating within the United States, these business interests have lobbyists who work to buy politicians to promote policy to protect their interests.

There is nothing extreme about saying "You aren't oppressed, but rather are millionaires afforded the opportunity to pursue your hopes and dreams in a country that doesn't care what color your skin is, and are being disrespectful towards the ideas and ideals of the freedoms which provide you those opportunities, and the men and women who serve to protect them. " What policy concession would be advisable to someone who argues otherwise? What they are advocating for is equality of outcome. This is completely incompatible with a free society. Concession to this point requires the introduction of a Marxist state, which is an extreme position.

I, for one, encourage the left to proceed down this path, and to very publicly embrace radical communist agitators who do violence in our communities. I hope they do it all the way up through the election.

How do you unite with someone on this topic? One side says that they won't stand in support of a country that oppresses them. The other side says that they aren't oppressed, but rather are millionaires afforded the opportunity to pursue their hopes and dreams in a country that doesn't care what color your skin is, and are being disrespectful towards the ideas and ideals of the freedoms which provide them those opportunities, and the men and women who serve to protect them. There is no reconciling these two positions. There is no compromise, as this ultimately breaks down as a fight between freedom, liberty, and republicanism and Marxism and the implementation of thought crimes. The reality is that our nation is at a turning point, and this is a fight which needs to be fought and won by one side or the other. Were are deciding, right now, how the next several centuries will be lived here in America.