TakeYouToTasker

I know who sets the definition. My comment was snide, and built on Doc offering the Oxford definition.

Stick around. The discussion, and the demands placed on an individual to be taken seriously here, have more educational value than most four year degrees these days. This is a lousy medium to infer tone. Take what I say at face value, without reading emotion into it.

You give a ***** about your girlfriend, not me. You want her to have better insurance than she's able to obtain for herself? You pay for it, and keep your hands out of my wallet. Your preferences in this regard are incredibly immoral. Who, exactly, do you think you are to insist that others should pay for articles of single use, non-shared utility at the barrel of a gun?

There's a good deal of evidence that he does, in fact, know that. The President was recruited to run for office by high ranking military intelligence officials precisely because of traitors like McCain operating at the highest level of government.

What are the differences between the life on one side of the birth canal vs the other at 40 weeks?

What if he knows that John McCain betrayed his country, many times over, aligning himself with true evil, costing American lives?

The President should be more than Johnny Bravo?

Do you believe that the morality of the situation is defined by Merriam Webster?

The advent of new medical technologies which increase fetal viability to align with that of a baby brought fully to term, along with the acknowledgement that the birth canal does not have magic life giving properties undercuts this argument completely.

Joe, you should understand at this point that my contention has never been that the media are doing a good job, that they are not a major problem, or that they engage in honest behavior. My contention is that you cannot punish them with ex-post facto laws, and that freedom of speech and of the press are paramount. The President agrees with me.

Speak to why, and make comparisons, and draw distinctions between these and other bundled securities.

I say possibly unethical because there were certainly some few who perfectly understood the machinations, but acted anyway; though it would be hard to prove. So, mister “arbitrary whims of a dictator”, explain what legal changes should have been made, and what the impacts would have been.

When the media, whom has long enjoyed the mantle of “The Fourth Estate”, work to circulate lies and bury the truth to the detriment of civil society they become the problem. If President Trump we’re truly so bad, they wouldn’t need to craft lies to sabotage him; they could simply allow him to destroy himself.

@Joe in Winslow What is your fascination with ex-post facto laws designed to throw people in jail for things which weren’t crimes when they were done? As GG mentioned, unethical possibly; but not illegal.

The text of his speech proves you wrong, or lying. The media selectively truncated what the President said in order to shift the meaning of what he said to the opposite of his purpose. And unlike the President, who condemned bad actors on both sides of the conflict, and praised both sides good people, in what should have been viewed as a unifying statement; the media weaponized soundbytes in order to foment division and stoke hatered.

I'm not so sure. It used to be that we wanted the same things, but had different ideas about how to get there; that's no longer the case. There can be no compromise with what the left currently holds as their policy positions; and I'm not willing to discuss ideas with someone who says I'm a racist because I disagree with them, as there's no path towards resolution there. The left has been fostering this divide for decades, and the right has continued to offer little resistance while giving ground. We've just about reached Bleeding Kansas, and someone is going to have to win.

See my edited post.

The President is not creating the divisiveness. The President is simply not elegant when speaking off the cuff, and the media are choosing to try and frame his words in the worst way possible without providing context. They have given up any pretext of simply reporting and allowing the reader/watcher to make up their mind, and have instead elected to lie and report that the President is saying things he is not, often on purpose. The President spoke, and made a reasonable statement. The divisiveness was created by those who reported something other than what he said. As to the culture war, it's coming to a head and cannot be stopped. The left and the right hold diametrically opposed, and incompatible views on how we should live. Trump is a symptom of the problem. He was elected because every day Americans got tired of being bullied further and and further to the left, being told they were homophobic/transphobic if they they didn't want grown men in their daughter's locker room, hateful if they wanted to peacefully practice their religion, misogynistic if they were against late term abortions, the cause of all the world's ills if they had the audacity to be born white, or God forbid, white AND male. Trump was elected because conservatives finally woke up and recognized that the enemy was at the gates, and elected a war-time President to punch back and take back ground. It's what he was elected to do.

And that's more than fair. Given that I hadn't seen your handle here before, I thought I'd alert you so you didn't start an argument with someone who isn't here. Cheers.

He's been banned.

I disagree with this sentiment, because it leaves the folks who were there protesting the removal of their heritage wrongly discarded as the racists the media (the left) were trying to paint them as; and continue to do as evidenced by the conversation we're having right now. This is a culture war being fought right now, and the President did well not to discard his base, and allow the left to frame the terms of debate. It's a mistake far too many Republicans have made in their fear of being called a racist, but the President doesn't care. He's done the right thing, and has punched back, claiming the high ground, and making the charges of racism toothless, as the lies they are. He's winning, and it's a major reason why. Further, he needs to win, knows it, and would be a fool to relinquish his weapons.

@Deranged Rhino @DC Tom He must have missed his marching orders. Leftists are back to caring about Facebook again: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/facebook-antitrust-investigation.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

... What? That’s not what I’m saying at all. You’re clearly unfamiliar with this several year long discussion between Joe and myself; and of my posting history. (There are nearly 20,000 of them advocating for classical liberalism) My argument is, and has always been, that the Freedom of Speech and of the Press is paramount, and that the suppression of speech of any kind, especially political speech, is the antithesis of a free society; and that I will not draw distinctions between individuals advocating for fascism.

3) Shoot at both groups of tyrannical autocrats when the inevitable revolution comes. Joe, I’m not willing to live in a world that believes oppression, real oppression, is a legitimate function of government.

Then you have no ground to argue against the censorship of conservatives and conservative viewpoints by Big Tech. You support the weapon, and have thereby legitimized it. You’re honestly not much different than Mao, or Stalin, or Castro in your views.