TakeYouToTasker

It’s a basic part of the predator profile: teachers, coaches, doctors, clergy. They all seek out jobs which give them access and help them gain trust.

https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/ex-un-aid-worker-jailed-in-nepal-for-sexually-abusing-boys-1.884308 Cross posted from another thread. Not an “aid worker”. He was a UN Chief, and one of the founders of UNICEF.

https://www.thenational.ae/world/asia/ex-un-aid-worker-jailed-in-nepal-for-sexually-abusing-boys-1.884308 Not an “aid worker”. A UN Chief and a co-founder of UNICEF.

This is accurate. It’s why they went through hell and high-water to force Trump out of office (coup attempt). Trump was recruited to run for this purpose. It’s the reason for most major policy positions.

Yes, it is. The MSM is part of the veil that the elites have pulled over your eyes in order to protect themselves from you. They will not engage honestly because that is not their job.

Mossad, CIA, and MI6.

His ass.

My brothers manage a federal prison. If Epstein is actually dead (which I highly doubt, and believe him to be in military custody), and he committed suicide, they think it likely that he packed his bedding into his throat to cut off his oxygen and suffocate himself.

On the basis that the President has no direct oversight over his Department of Justice (which he has direct oversight of), but does have direct oversight over a couple of prison guards (whom he does not have direct oversight of). And so the Trump DoJ indicted Epstein, knowing that the President would be outed for criminal behavior which the public would be outraged over directly before the upcoming election cycle; but then Trump had his minions at a Federal prison take him out, because that chain of command clearly is direct, and everyone knows that prison guards are in close contact with the Oval. Also important to note is that leaked Democratic talking points on the issue state to not link to, nor reference, the primary source documents which seem to clear the President of anything untoward, is in no way suspicious. What about this is so hard to understand?

This is... Odd... https://medium.com/@nathanielhebert/did-jeffrey-epstein-win-the-oklahoma-powerball-lottery-july-2-2008-d23d2b0933e5

@GaryPinC I’m not ignoring your response. Work travel at the moment.

I’m fairly certain he’s not dead. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts he’s been moved to a secure military location.

Do you watch CNN? FoxNews? MSNBC? Do you enjoy interacting with internet trolls? Do you find value in positions staked out by the Klu Klux Klan or Antifa? You might. Others might not. A right to speak is not a right to make others choose to listen. (edit: the broader “you”, not meaning to imply that you find value in any of those things)

Not at all. What I’m saying is that there should be a functional “ignore” feature, much like this site has, with more functionality because the user base is larger. Essentially the web equivalent of “changing the channel” or “canceling the newspaper subscription”.

Deserved it’s own thread. Little information, much speculation/disinformation.

You propose to make America more free by stripping citizens of additional protections of their rights? Also, I’d love to see the weighting and metrics of that index.

Pass legislation declaring social media platforms to be the public square as far as speech and expression go, and encourage the various platforms to allow individuals broad filter tools to choose not to listen to ideas they don’t like, should they choose not to.

Shining a massive bright light on Pedowood just as the Epstein files are dropping.

Your proposition that the government has the just authority to regulate in the way you've described does not preserve the right to bear arms. It asserts that the government has the right to seize any weapons which individuals refuse to register and chip, and that individuals simply enjoy the privilege of bearing arms, so long as they are in compliance with the government. Rights and privileges are not the same thing. Rights are intrinsic to an individual's humanity, and cannot be separated from him, only violated. Privileges are granted by a benevolent entity, and demand capitulation and subservience. Absolutely not. I have the right to conceal, or to display (open carry), my choice. You have the same choice about your own actions, but you do not enjoy the right to dictate my peaceful decisions. That's what rights are.

For starters I would put an immediate end to all government programs which result in perverse decisions incentivizing single motherhood.

If you are up to your nostrils in water, with your feet chained to the bottom of a well; pouring more water in would certainly be considered doing something.

You say that as if advocating for what is statistically most likely to bring about the best outcomes for children, and has served as a basic building block of society for all of human history, is a bad thing. I advocate for what is moral, and what is best. The census reports that 82.2% of single parent households are fatherless, and that's what we're talking about; though I imagine motherless households have problems of their own. Walking is good for your health. The fact that some people don't have legs doesn't invalidate that.

Nope. Will be the largest ongoing mass casualty in history. People will not give up their guns. If you try to violate their rights by taking them there will be massive amounts of bloodshed. The first time someone dies because some government agency comes for their guns, it will demonstrate the absolute necessity of having those guns to protect you from a tyrannical government.

... I presented you with a list of points, each of which will make it very difficult to implement your ideas. I examined your idea, and was considerate enough to think it through, and provide you with a list of very real challenges to it's implementation. I now ask that you reciprocate, and address them, one by one. That's not how this works. You offered a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman) in place of an argument. You've now doubled down with a bare assumption that there is a gun problem (I reject this), and imply that those who disagree on that front, and who disagree that you have the just authority to impose the confiscation/tracking you propose should not be considered law-abiding (I reject this as well). American citizens enjoy the protection of a natural right to bear arms in order to defend their liberty from anyone who might seek to infringe it, be that other individuals or the government. This right does not come from government. It is rather completely intrinsic to humanity, and governments can only be legitimate if they propose to protect the natural rights of those individuals they propose to govern through just law. A government which does not propose to protect those rights, but rather chooses to violate them on their own, is tyrannical, and therefore cannot be just or legitimate. Further, the High Law of the land is the US Constitution. There is no law which can be passed which invalidates or supersedes it. As such, any law which regulated firearms in the way in which you propose would itself be illegal. The law abiding citizens would be those to held fast to their weaponry, and fought back against your proposed tyranny. The law breakers would be those violating the Constitution.