Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
But the inverse of that is also true: “Those who would give up essential Safety, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Safety nor Liberty”
still does not address the American citizens who did nothing wrong being dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night at gunpoint by federal agents. Strange how you still have nothing to say about that.
I did say something about it. The kids need to be accounted for and questioned along with the adults. Even adults could have been victims. That's why you detain them all and sort it out. Think of it like a bank full of hostages. You don't just let everyone go right after you storm the bank. You can scream "mah rights" all day long, but your laws allow for detaining and questioning. That's the price you have to pay to live in a law and order society. The major risk of continued crime and victimization overshadows the minor inconveniences of detaining and questioning. Your courts have been very clear on that since before the days of Hoover and organized crime in Chicago around 1930. Immediate and long term safety will always take priority over any short-term civil discomfort. It's also why you guys went so long taking your shoes off at airports....
The extreme example of a free society with full civil rights is basically anarchy. Like I guess parts of Chicago are with the normalized murders and gang violence?
Then the federal government would need a warrant for each individual apartment they raided. Not only have we not seen any evidence of this, administration officials have yet to even claim they obtained one.
From the little I know, the prosecutors of your laws involving things like child sex trafficking usually release warrant information right after the grand jury indictments to make sure the public isn't prejudiced. If the kids you saw being zip-tied were a part of the process of isolating them from their captors, they will probably redact those names in the released court documents to protect them from your crazy fringes who exploit people for political reasons through doxxing and other means of a different layer of exploitation.
So you think foreign gangs don't exist in your country? You guys are into all sorts of tinfoil....
I don't know if there were actual foreign gangs in the apartment block or not. I was just asking how you would deal with it if the problem goes on for years unaddressed like the 1930's mafia problem you guys had... if I recall your history correctly, only the federal law could ultimately remove that kind of problem. And wasn't Chicago the birthplace of all that?
So I assume then that you support Chicagoans arming themselves and getting ready to shoot down federal agents?
America has the ultimate freedom to FAFO.
What's your solution if a foreign gang takes over an apartment building for years and the local government is too afraid/incompetent/complicit to do anything about it? Just accept it as a new normal?
onlyfans
nuff said
Wow, Malthusian much? 1800's is calling, they want that philosophy back.
not really, there's a risk, but it's not even close to the risk of ongoing gun barrel to gun barrel engagements.
I'm just awonder at the ridiculous lengths you went to justify taking this simple statement...
It doesn’t change the fact that transgenderism is a mental illness and normalizing it is a bad idea.
Turned it into a ridiculous binary construct, deliberately choosing the word "better" to frame it as an "or" type binary decision...
Here, he is excusing the way trans people are being treated on the basis of his allegation that it's a mental illness,
And then on top of it, when you went through the mental gymnastics to justify it, you seemingly fabricated a story about how he was "excusing" something... You created not just a basic strawman binary construct, but an entire narrative complete with your mind-reading analysis! All from a simple 18-word statement! That is outstanding, for sure. Thank you again for explaining at least partly how Kamala gained and retained her die-hard supporters. I can read Kamala's 107 Days book, but your interesting posts really put a lot of the questions as to how she got so far with so little effort in a clarifying light.
Here, he is excusing the way trans people are being treated on the basis of his allegation that it's a mental illness,
so I asked him whether he believes the demonizing and ridiculing of trans people (something that is happening in a wide spread fashion - that's a fact, not debatable) is better than the direction his side of the aisle has chosen.
So why even have a faux conversation if you already decided beforehand what his position was, what his intent was, and his beliefs? I have heard of echo chambers, but rarely a one-person echo chamber.... You already made up your mind that it's either he doesn't normalize dysphoria or he thinks dehumanizing dysphoric people is a better idea.... That made it clear to everyone that the question, especially now that you explained it like that, in your mind, was not only rhetorical but clearly framed to capture a gotcha moment in your own head.
That was your binary framing, and it was deliberate. I suggest next time you ask instead of assuming some ridiculous binary construct designed to shut down a meaningful conversation. That would be the polite thing.
There is a huge difference between being on the frontlines and being on the front lines as an infantryman. (or I guess infantry woman)
Repair a tank tread (like your video)... sure...a sergeant major providing logistics to the frontline like your video shows...sure....breaching doors in house-to-house close combat...absolutely not.
Israel can't afford to lose those skirmishes.
The fact that you regularly use dehumanizing language to paint a caricature of people and their positions whom you don't agree with, along with oversimplifications about just about everything discussed...it's close enough. That binary framing is just exhibit A of hundreds.
Asking for one's position on an alternative doesn't make it a binary choice. English 101
Except you didn't do that. You asked for his position on your extreme end of a deliberate binary framing. Propaganda 101 is more accurate.
I framed it as a binary because what I offered is exactly what is happening on the political right right now.
Thank you for your honesty.
The difference between these two is that Kamala presents herself as a serious person
Thank you for proving my final point with your sincere take. Also, thank you for allowing everything else I challenged about your debate style to go completely uncontested for all to see. In Canada, we debate politely. That's the difference.
Antifa de-facto conquered a few of your states, and with small budgets. All you need to do is wear a protester's uniform and declare to a friendly judge that you were protesting peacefully.
Every democracy only functions as long as the people with guns permit it at their pleasure. The monopoly on violence ultimately decides the legitimacy of whether ballots can be cast at all depending on how far it wishes to indulge the masses based on the present threats to them. The one thing that cannot ever be decided at the ballot box is the stripping of the military of their powesr to enforce or ignore the outcome. So WRLY is correct, the OP can only occur with wizardry.
The book 1984. When I was a kid, I read it in 1982, and the world was caught up in the Reagan hysteria. That book changed me forever.
It doesn’t change the fact that transgenderism is a mental illness and normalizing it is a bad idea.
Do you think demonizing and ridiculing the people experiencing gender dysphoria is better?
That is a binary choice. what you just did was reduce a nuanced point into two extremes. That’s your framing, and it's not a mistake on your part.
Still do not know what a strawman is.
The fact that you regularly use dehumanizing language to paint a caricature of people and their positions whom you don't agree with, along with oversimplifications about just about everything discussed...it's close enough. That binary framing is just exhibit A of hundreds.
Israel itself admits women are not in the elite spearhead brigades (Golani, Givati, Paratroopers, Nahal) or special forces. They remain male-dominated because of physical standards and casualty risk.
However, Israel also do it and to my knowledge they are not so woke, it seems to be a matter of survival.
Israel doesn't even do that (put women to fight as combat infantry on front lines), and they have the highest percentage of women in their military out of all the nations in the world. They have frontline roles like medics, artillery support,logistics, but Israel doesn't use women as frontline infantry. And they definitely cannot afford to lower standards that could compromise the outcome of battles.
During the campaign Kamala showed us the best of who she was, America didn’t believe her and assumed the worst.
I'd argue the opposite happened. She recently released a book I think it was titled 107 days. She addressed a lot of real things that happened during her campaign that were self-inflicted by her own admission. The tipping point event occurred when she could not come up with an answer to the question if she would do anything different than Biden. That wasn't even a gotcha question, more of a softball question. In her book she admitted she messed that up and likely cost her the election. She called it "pulling the pin on a hand grenade." So the problem isn't that voters didn't believe her. It's that her loyal supporters didn't want to believe she performed poorly during the 107 day campaign as she freely admitted in her own book. The undecided voters fully believed her though, judged her performance on the merits, and chose accordingly. In her own book, Kamala Harris freely admits to her own campaign mistakes, so an intellectually honest approach is to take her at her word rather than to defend an idealized version of her candidacy she herself says never existed. It's actually her die-hard supporters that refuse to believe Kamala, and assume the best.
Additionally, the premise of the OP is ridiculous, claiming your president is causing "widespread suffering," which more likely is typical American partisan hyperbole than an actionable offense. Answering those "how long have you been beating your wife" type questions with faulty premises is clearly a sign of arguing in bad faith. But you shouldn't be putting faith in detached people anyway like the OP suggested we should. To me, the OP reads like a loaded list of grievances dressed up as a “gotcha.” It assumes all Trump voters only measure success by others’ supposed suffering, which is insulting, dehumanizing, oversimplifying, and logically broken.
but make you feel better despite (or perhaps because of) the suffering of the people you are effectively scapegoating.
He said even if those things did NOT make him feel happy, they would still be good (for your country I assume).
If I am misunderstanding you I am happy to be corrected.
I hope you feel happy then.
On your other points, knocking down your strawmans is super easy and barely an inconvenience.
1) Gas prices are always seasonal, so low prices in the fall compared to summer doesn't mean a recession is happening like your strawman suggests.
2) Your president literally outlawed racial quotas and declared an end to the special considerations for fringe lifestyles.
3) Your strawman saying ripping people out of courts and deporting them ignores the fact that deportation itself is an act of due process.
4) Your strawman about fighting "the border bill" ignores the fact that the bill itself was full of things that would make your existing laws harder to enforce and very costly to your American citizens.
5) Your strawman insisting the dysphoria problem your country has is a binary problem purposely ignores the obvious take of providing proper mental help instead of affirming or castigating them.
In other words: Do you support conversion therapy for gay people just because someone brainwashed them into thinking they should identify as straight, despite their biological reality? If not, then why would you support doing the exact same thing to someone with dysphoria, encouraging them to reject reality instead of helping them reconcile with it?
Do you support conversion therapy for gay people just because someone brainwashed them into thinking they should identify as straight despite their reality?
It's all luck, the tinfoil knows.
Exactly, Complete with Dogma and Crusades and indulgences.
Race is a religion.
