TakeYouToTasker

The building of wall segments, recommended by 87% of Border Patrol agents (the subject matter experts), in an effort to reroute slavers and child sex traffickers to areas more easily patrolled is sophomoric? And if your stance is the opposite of the President's, does that mean you believe unfettered human slavery, the heroine trade, child molesting and rape, and a lack of national sovereignty are good things?

Well done.

Which portray assassination attempts on the President. It's who the left is now.

I'll ask you to cite examples of these, with sources, detailing the exact nature of the abuses in question, as I have painstakingly done in this thread in regards to the human trafficking and child sex slavery issue. The I would like for you to explain why you think it's appropriate to oppose the President in his work to end human slavery and child sex trafficking because you don't like other things he has done: "I think the President has done some bad things, so I will deny him the ability to do good things." seems like a lousy argument to make.

I've addressed this here before, though I'm happy to do it again. I don't support individuals, as I believe the "great man" perspective of history to be dangerous because it lionized cults of personality over the law. I believe in supporting moral ideals, the protection of human freedom, and positive outcomes towards those ends. I was vocally opposed to the President during the run-up to the election, as I'm a classically liberal rights theorist, and everything I knew about President Trump prior to his election led me to believe that he was a dangerous demagogue, with leftist tendencies, who had no interest in libertarian principals. I thought he would be the downfall of conservatism in the United States, and would usher in an era of unchecked leftist populism which would be the final nail in the coffin of individual rights and national autonomy. I voted for Johnson, as he presented himself as the least appalling of 4 terrible candidates. But, as I said, I guided by a belief in human freedom, and rights theory; and as such I chance my stance based on evidence. The President has changed my mind, and has done more for advancing the cause of human freedom both domestically and abroad than any President in my adult lifetime; and I support that.

To be crystal clear, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else is intentionally condoning slavery, rape, or pedophilia. What I'm saying is that the policy you support makes way for those things to occur with greater frequency and ease, and that's a hard reality whether you like it or not. So, by taking the stance that you do, you are passively allowing that there is some acceptable level of the occurrence of those things within the United States, balanced against cost. You don't like having that difficult reality pointed out, and that's fine, but it doesn't change anything.

I have problems because you don't recognize the severity of the child sex trafficking epidemic on our southern border?

No, you actually don't. Allow me to help you here as you struggle: You source op-ed pieces, which are anecdotal. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Data is what I have provided: 89% of BP agents support a wall and feel it would make them more effective in their jobs, while only 7% disagree. Further data I provided when you dismissed those 89% of BP agents as "hillbillies with rape fantasies of brown people", was that 52% of border agents are Hispanic. No, what I do is source data. What you do is post anecdotes and op-eds which don't even entirely support your position. To wit: This article you linked as evidence of your position was an interview with a border patrol agent: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-officers-us-mexico-border-wall/ Ignoring the fact that you argued out the other side of your mouth that border patrol agents were racist hillbilly rapists, and thusly their opinions on the issue shouldn't matter, you asserted that it was evidence of your position because an expert was referenced giving a first hand accounting, and stated that "nothing would stop smuggling and trafficking". A few points: You selectively ignored the fact that: "Eisenhauer declined to comment on “policy or legislation,” but maintained that the solution to border security requires a combination of technology, infrastructure and agents." (hint: infrastructure means a wall) There are no 100% sure methods of stopping human trafficking, but the article cleanly skits around the facts that the quotes being used indicate that wall segments would certainly make it more difficult for slavers: “What we see is, to avoid detection, these criminal networks will try and exploit areas that are more remote... kind of a harsher terrain, with the idea that agents have less of a response time and less of response capabilities there and that there is less tactical infrastructure in those areas,” “Border fortification means a lot of things in different areas,” said Eisenhauer. “In areas where we can’t have a physical structure, we use the environmental challenges to funnel traffic into certain areas to identify and apprehend [individuals] in a more effective manner.” This is exactly what the wall segments being proposed are designed to achieve: to force traffickers away from these remote and inaccessible areas, and to funnel them towards areas which are easier patrolled and have shorter response times. It is a creation of the "tactical infrastructure" the agent says is lacking. Oh, look, a lie in two parts! I'll address your first lie: And then throw up ***** about "systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children" This is the single greatest humanitarian crisis we face as a people. Because of the logistics of human smuggling, the easiest way to get them into the country is through our largely unprotected border with a third world country. It is far more difficult to bring them in through designated ports of entry which have security check points. Again, the wall is not a panacea, but rather is a tool, and only part of the solution. As to the nature of the trafficking situation on the border: 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 Now for the second part of your lie: and then promptly ignore anything that might actually help the problem that isn't in your myopic worldview. No where have I argued that the construction of wall segments is the only thing we should be spending money on in regards to the border. We also need to increase the amount of actual man power, and implement technology that would help such as "ground sensors and infrared and camera technology." Personally, I'm in favor of completely militarizing the border in addition to the wall. I reject the idea because the experts who do the work of breaking up child trafficking rings every day insist a wall would help them do so; and don't believe that, given a fiscal budget of over 4.4 trillion dollars for the year 2019, that 5.9 billion is too much to spend if it makes the job easier (IE sets slaves free). I believe I've amply demonstrated this not to be the case, and conversely have allowed you to paint yourself as a raving lunatic, dismissive of data, and so dogmatically opposed to the current President of the United States that you would rather see the weakest and most at risk among us suffer at the hands of brutal captors than allow the President a political victory, even when it's the right thing to do in the name of human freedom.

The reality is that you're sourcing opinion pieces, and disregarding data which runs strongly against your biases. And in doing so, you're aiding and abetting the systemic rape and slavery of young Hispanic children, because you care more about politics and emoting than you do about people. It's ugly, and sad. But it's who you are as a man.

Would you be upset if someone burst into your living room and started raping a 6 year old.

"Agent Uncle Jimmy *****", followed with accusations of racist rape fantasies. It's hard to imagine a less intellectually valid answer, but with you, that's par for the course. It's the type of man you're unfortunate enough to be. Though, as if that garbage wasn't bad enough, I think it's important to note that 52% of US border agents are Hispanic. That's right. More than 50% of the people you just accused of being racist hillbillies with "brown rape fantasies" are brown people. Strong argument there. Your first article, the one you chose to post as evidence of your position, is an interview with border patrol agents. You can't posit evidence of your own position by citing the views of border patrol agents, and then dismiss the views of border patrol agents as irrelevant. Do you have any idea how foolish you look right now? Explain how that makes any ***** sense at all. The source included data demonstrating that 89% of all border patrol agents were in favor of a wall, and thought it would be impactful. 7% disagreed. I'll leave it to the reader to judge which one of us in a moron.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/ That's 89%, vs. 7% who don't think it will be effective. Who's ignoring what now? Now, onto your own articles: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-officers-us-mexico-border-wall/ This agent may be in the 7% who think the wall will be ineffective, however he speaks of a continuous wall, in place of better staffing an technology. You're creating a false choice, and a strawman. Literally no one is arguing in favor of a continuous wall, and literally no one is arguing for a wall as a substitute. The agent mentions, in the article in question, that physical barriers work as a deterrent by forcing people into areas more easily traversed. The agent also mentions that smugglers seek out areas that remote, difficult to traverse, and are far from outposts making it difficult to patrol. THAT'S WHERE THE WALLS ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED TO ACT AS PHYSICAL BARRIERS YOU ***** MORON.

I'm not interested in op-eds written by "centrists or conservatives". The wall isn't about the politics of the wall, it's about breaking up a multi-billion dollar a year slave trade industry which operates through our southern border. The experts who spend their days actively fighting against this scourge state that building wall segments across potions of the border which are difficult to patrol, and far away from check points, will make it easier to combat by steering traffickers closer to areas which are more actively patrolled. This is a fact that I'm not going to allow you to run from. The wall, according to the people who actively fight against human trafficking, is a necessary component of fighting it in as effective a way of possible. You're insisting on conditions which, according to the experts, would make it less than as effective as possible, which means permitting a higher amount of human slaves and child sex traffickers into our country. This implies you believe there is an acceptable amount of slavery and child rape in America balanced against cost. I want you to articulate exactly how much child rape and slavery is acceptable to you, given your position requires it. This is a combination of a strawman and reductio ad absurdum. Two logical fallacies for the price of one. As stupid as you're behaving in this thread? I certainly hope so.

So, now that we've established that neither of you are interested in putting an end to modern human slavery and child sex trafficking; what do each of you feel is the acceptable amount of slavery and pedophilia we should have in America?

Men don't know how to dress anymore. A well tailored shirt, a good pair of shoes. The wrist watch, the Cross pen, cufflinks (when appropriate), tie clip, lapel pin; each tastefully worn, not overdoing it by loading up, add a layer of class.

I wasn't a huge fan of their stock time pieces, but the "build your own" feature yields some decent results. I just bought one for $208. Round Polished Case, Classima Black Automatic Dial, Smooth Black Bezel, Metal Strap.

No, it's the argument you're making, as the experts who spend their days trying to upend human slavery and child sex trafficking have stated that we need a wall in order for them to best accomplish this task. That they believe this to be the case, and for you to then say that the expense is too high, means that they will not be able to effectively curb the slave trade and child sex trafficking to the maximum about they are able, which means that you believe that there is an acceptable level of such activity in the United States.

No, it's a permanent bulwark designed to reroute modern day slave ships, and as such is worth the cost associated with it, unless you're going to argue that their is a level of slavery and child molestation in America that you find acceptable. The other costs (the seizure of private land) is accounted for in the Constitution in the 4th Amendment.

No, you literally could not, because in a 10 year cycle there will be multiple new Congresses, at least one new President, and a likely downturn. Today's government cannot make decisions about what future government will do, and insisting that it can is asinine. And again, the wall is a permanent structure, and thus would make at least part of the solution permanent.

They can, actually. They can impose a confiscatory negative rate, which acts as a tax on savings.

Man power and funding can change on a whim with a downturn, new Congress, or new President. A wall is a permanent structure which will address the problem regardless of the politics of the day.

Absolutely amazing...

This is amazing...

That is hilarious.

There is no such thing as Must See TV in the shout box. I can't remember the last time I read anything of value there. Spending more than 30 seconds in that turd slurry decreases your IQ by at least 7 points. The biggest improvement SDS ever made to this board was by removing it from the default settings.