TakeYouToTasker

Can I call you "Spud"? Yeah... Yeah, I think I pretty much have to now. "Spud"...

Wait, you didn’t know that the personal failings of individual conservatives have transitive properties which color every conservative and magically render their governing and moral philosophies moot?

Where I am now I'm on a lake, a 30 minute drive from the ocean, hour an a half from the mountains, snowy winters, white sand beaches in the summer.

One of my favorite things about the President is his drive to stamp out modern human slavery and sex trafficking, regardless of who gets swept up in the fallout. And make no mistake, this is a central policy of the Trump administration.

The massage parlors are huge in terms of human trafficking and sex slavery. Think about this for a minute: These girls are brought in from poor areas of Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. with the promise of sponsorship and a better life in America. They don't speak the language, understand the culture, or have any friends or relatives, or any kind of support network. The people who bring them here hide their true intent, and there is no better life. These girls are ready made victims. They are forced to live in shanty dorms, beaten, and forced to service the clientele until they break, and are discarded.

Montana is nice as well. I'm stuck though because my wife refuses to move anywhere colder than where we already are, and ideally wants to go someplace warm and on the water. Which leaves me with costal Texas.

Coastal Texas.

I have no problem with history metering out judgement of policy. None. It’s the proper place. My issue is with the attempt to criminalize policy preferences which cut against the orthodoxy of the day; which is what the Trump Administration is dealing with today. Process is far more important than individual outcome.

Please outline exactly how Wallace‘s desire not to involve the United States in future European conflicts led to the deaths of tens of millions? It seems to me that Wallace was ousted, his policy preferences went unutilized, and tens of millions died anyway. You’re making the argument that a policy of non-aggression in the pursuit of peace should be criminalized. What happened to Wallace is not entirely dissimilar to what has happened to the current administration in terms of attempting to criminalize foreign policy which doesn’t meet with the entrenched orthodoxy.

You’re demonstrating ignorance on the topic. You should read more and opine less.

Bullets are cheaper.

They removed him because he was an impediment to their preferred policy prescriptions towards the Soviets. It was a political difference, nothing more. It was framed as more by those in power who didn’t want to have a policy debate because it was easier, and more politically expedient, to destroy the man than to take on his arguments.

I disagree with this statement. Wallace had different foreign policy prescriptions towards the Soviets, and his political opponents used it as an opportunity to paint him as a stooge. Similar to what's happening today, it was an attempt by the powerful to criminalize foreign policy which deviated from their orthodoxy.

I’m going to follow this in the hopes that piece of ***** sees jail time.

Again, your ass is out. There are no amounts of legal or social privileges any state government has given to anyone which are tantamount to rights. You can show me as many as you'd like, but not one of them are rights unless they are directly, or directly related to, natural rights. Beyond natural rights there are no other rights; if someone can give them to you, or take them away, then you do not have the right to them. As such, rights do not come from government. Full stop. And again, your conflation of legal privilege with rights for the purpose of imposing mutability on the natural right to life is an absurd argument to make, and I reject it wholesale. Words have meaning. Simply declaring that something is a right does not make it so.

No, what's stupid is your insistence on comingling two very different concepts, inalienable rights and legal privileges, and then making an argument which insists that since the thing you comingled with rights that aren't rights are mutable, that actual rights are mutable as well. This is exactly what you're doing when you draw your line for "giving babies rights" at birth. It's introduction is either incredibly stupid or completely intellectually dishonest, and either way, I reject it wholesale. You'll need to make a much better argument, because the one you're making sucks.

It's not my fault, or anyone else's for that matter, that you don't understand the concepts in play; and the argument only seems dumb to you because of your profound ignorance. "Rights" has a very specific and narrow meaning. They are fundamental to your humanity, and the basis of right and wrong. They cannot be taken from you, or given to you; only violated and protected. Anything beyond this which requires the intervention of other people is not a right, but rather is a privilege. Rights exist inherent to you in a state of nature, requiring the efforts or no other person or entity; as you cannot be said to have a right to anything which requires the labor of another person. What you are referring to as "legal rights" are not rights at all. They are social/legal privileges put into place, constructed on top of your foundational natural rights, and do not supersede, amend, or repeal them. These come from other individuals or societies intervention, and can be removed from you; meaning you had no right to them. They are not rights.

No, the government does not. You either lack a fundamental understanding of what rights are, and how they differ from social/legal privileges; or you're intentionally trying to conflate them in order to bolster your poor argument. Rights are inherent to you, like the right to life. It is the moral priori we appeal to when we state that it is wrong to kill. Social/legal privileges are separate ideas entirely, and are not intrinsic to your humanity. This is not semantics. This is an incredibly important distinction which I will not allow you to gloss over. It is not a reasonable line, as it is nothing but an arbitrary assertion. A reasonable line would be backed with logic and science. Speak to this in depth please. This is an absurd fiat declaration of your position, not an argument. See my first response to you in this post. When an argument as poor as yours is made, it can surely seem so.

Billion.

From the article: "But as awareness of the plan has spread, some historians see a threat to future scholarship on the Obama administration — and to the presidential library system itself. Without a dedicated repository, they argue, the rich constellations of related material found at the other libraries — papers donated by family members, cabinet members and aides, as well as pre-presidential and personal papers — could end up scattered, or even uncollected. And without help from specialized archivists, the promised digital democratization could just as easily turn into a hard-to-navigate data dump." This is by design. He's hiding. "most transparent administration ever"

Well duh, that’s why they keep them in Reserve.

I would have gone with "blown", but dossier talk is all the rage right now, so I get it.

That is hilarious.

You're 100% wrong here, and are conflating legality with philosophical and moral constructs. Our entire system of government is predicated on the notion that humans have the intrinsic right to life (amongst other things) and that the ends of just and legitimate government are to protect that right with legislation; and further, that governments which do not do those things are unjust and illegitimate. Our Foundational documents concede that rights do not come from government, but rather are intrinsic to an individuals humanity. Again, our government does not endow individuals with rights. It acknowledges the inalienable rights of individuals, and legitimizes itself with a pledge to protect them. You "line" is arbitrary, as it assigns protections on the "right to life" not when life begins, but rather when it's convenient for individual mothers, and inherently flawed in that it intends a usurpation of government authority over the individual, insisting that rights flow from it's benevolent hand. Finally, your suggestion that charting what rights someone has before and after birth shouldn't be disputed is absurd, monstrous, and an outright rejection of science. Humans have rights when they become human, which is when we admit that they are alive.

Your position isn’t logical. First of all, you don’t “give rights” to someone. Rights are an intrinsic and inalienable part of humanity. You can, of course, choose not to protect someone’s rights; but that’s the hallmark of oppressive tyrannies. Secondly, the “assigning of a social security number” is a horrible annalogy for multiple reasons. The notion is that humans have the right to life, and a just government has the duty to protect that right with legislation. Life clearly does not begin where the ***** ends, as there are no magical life confiring properties there. As such, with that admission, the only logical and just position can be one of viable life. Else you’re making the argument of monsters holding a total disregard for the value of life.