SIR_Sergeant

What I like about Kendrick, and rap now in general, is that I think anyone can relate to it and identify with the meanings or emotions of a song. I'm not a fan of "gansta" rap in part because I can't really relate to it. Guys like Kendrick Lamar or Childish Gambino appeal to a more general audience, and I think rap is moving in a positive direction.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/21/breaking-new-mexico-passes-bill-to-abolish-civil-asset-forfeiture/ I'm glad to see that this has passed and hopefully it will be signed by the governor. It doesn't surprise me that this came out of NM, the state did produce Gary Johnson. Allowing law enforcement to take an individual's property without due process is straight up theft by the state. More states ought to, in my opinion, follow suit and take measures to protect the property rights of its citizens. I think the provison that all legally seized funds go into the state coffers and not into the hands of law enforcement was a smart move. It's a good safeguard to police the police. Your thoughts on this action and civil forfeiture in general?

Which is your opinion. If you're going to argue a position at least put forward a halfway decent argument besides "muh feels."

Nothing you've said in regards to the " value" of sex is an objective fact. People become involved in prostitution for a variety of reasons, but to dismiss them as "STD ridden whores" is rather insensitive. Most people working in the sex trade now went to it because they had no other options and were likely coerced in some way. Nor are they free to leave that life, under the threat of violence. Legalization isn't a stamp of approval, just a safer way of doing what's going to be done regardless.

This is my point. There is no universal "value" or "meaning" to sex and to legislate on the matter if there is a clear breach of an individual's civil liberties. Although for the practical purposes of this discussion I think it is irrelevant, I think sex can have whatever meaning you want it to have. It can be purely for pleasure, it can be something you share with a significant other, etc.

My point is that sex is something that can be sold. The actors/actresses might not be paying each other, but they are paid for their sexual services by the production company. Sex can be and is sold. I get that it isn't a direct connection, but as I said before, I think some basic parallels can be drawn.

Even if you find it disgusting, what effect does an interaction between two consenting adults have on you? People can say whatever they like, but that doesn't mean a person can enter into a legally binding contract (a marriage) with a cell phone. Marriage is, in legal matters, a contract between two consenting adults. Similarly, prostitution is an economic exchange. One individual provides a service (sex) in exchange for some type of payment. Whether or not sex has some inherent meaning is irrelevant for legal purposes. My point in regards to porn is that it and prostitution both use sex as a good in a voluntary exchange. One is media depicting sex, the other is actually sex. Obviously they aren't the same but I think some parallels can be drawn. Props to you for making this a "left vs. right" issue.

It came out last week, I think it might be his best yet. I really love the new version of "i" and "You Ain't Gotta Lie."

You can not like something without feeling the urge to legislate on it. I don't like cigarettes. I don't want to ban them. I'd consider myself sane and mentally stable and I have no problems with prostitution. I think it is a completely legitimate service. This isn't a constitutional question, this is a matter of state or federal code. Also, no one who thinks prostitution should be legal is an advocate for the legalization of rape or CP. That's as dumb as saying by allowing two men or two women to marry, people will marry a dog or a tree. Thank you, on the behalf of all of us who are not Christians on going ahead and making your religious beliefs into law. /s

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned porn yet. Perfectly legally to pay someone for sex, on the condition that it is filmed or photographed. Is it really that different? One is for the pleasure of the client, the other to be distributed as media for whoever to enjoy. By extension, the services are almost identical (in a way).

And here lies the problem with the regulation of the private affairs of individuals. Be it drugs, sex, etc, one person's values (or values of a given group) shouldn't dictate public policy.

I just looked it up, found a segment on Dailymotion. I'm a big fan of Penn Jillette's politics. He makes good points in an entertaining fashion.

Morality is subjective. You may have a problem with that. I however, do not.

Mandated STD testing would certainly decrease the instance of STD transmission among sex workers. I don't know what the protocol would be, but a sex worker that failed a test would be subject to some kind of action preventing them from working. Decreasing STD transmission is certainly a good thing. Prostitution is going to happen regardless, it might as well be done in a much safer environment. It also would be much more likely to decrease the instance of sex workers falling victim to drug abuse, given the better working standards. As for the "impact on society," I don't see an issue here. I don't make any moral judgments in regards to prostitution, and it's already commonplace. I'd rather people do it in a much safer environment than the status quo.

Absolutely. Preventing two consenting adults from exchange of goods is wrong to me. By making it legal, it's safer for all involved. It's not to say people won't try to work around the system but making it legal creates a framework for things like STD testing and and better workplace standards for sex workers. Also makes it safer for any willing buyers of the service.

Turkey is a member of NATO and the US is allied with the Saudis. Neither of them would ever attack Israel.

I don't buy this. I think Israel is more than capable of defending themselves without big brother America there to protect them. Israel's military is far superior to that of any of it's neighbors, and any of the regional powers that actually have capable military forces would never attack Israel (Turkey, Saudi Arabia). Iran might but I doubt it. If anything, Israel would go after them. Iran is occupied with fighting IS anyway.

To the best of my knowledge, most founding fathers would have been what I call non-interventionists, not isolationists. It's the same crap conservatives tried to apply to Ron Paul. Just because you don't want to become entangled in the affairs of other nations doesn't make you an isolationist. Trade and diplomatic relations are always a good thing.

I don't blame the US for starting the conflict, but I do take issue with this policy of defending whatever Israel does no matter what. To me, the notion of standing by another country regardless of that country's behavior is highly problematic. I agree that taking part in creating Israel and then dropping them is an issue, but as I (and George Washington) feel, entangling foreign alliances are a problem.

Because everything the Israeli's do has an effect on US-Middle East relations. Part of the reason so many people are so hostile to the US in the region is because of the US's staunch support of Israel. It's basic geopolitics.

I understand this but I value the sovereignty of a nation (and therefore it's currency) more than the potential for greater gains in an economic upturn. When a single nation (Greece) can disrupt an entire monetary system, that's a problem. I understand the convenience of the Euro, but I'll take sound money over convenience.

I'm disappointed. I know nothing about the other candidates but I do not like Netanyahu. He's just another aggressor in a conflict going back decades for which I place more of the blame on Israel.

The nations that opted not become involved in the Eurozone were smart. Having a centralized currency shared among several nations was inevitably going to have problems. In regards to Merkel, I don't know enough about to really have an opinion, although she does seem to be a leading opposition voice to Putin.

That was incredibly dangerous. Some serious disciplinary measures should be taken against the driver of the lead car.

I would recommend using Windows Defender and Malwarebytes.