TakeYouToTasker

I think the other part that's being missed is that while private companies are more like to misuse more people's data, more often, and in more ways, government misuse of that data is likely to be more hostile, more insidious, more targeted, more political, and more difficult to prosecute.

I'm looking forward to this conversation.

This would constitute an act of war by England, which would certainly justify the military tribunals you and I have been discussing.

Also important questions which are certainly part and parcel to the culture and heritage portion of the discussion. I'd ask anyone forwarding those concerns to define the idea of a melting pot, which requires cultural assimilation of immigrants; vs. that of a tapestry which does not, and instead serves to protect the immigrants pre-existing culture which they are importing. I'd also ask anyone making that case to speak to differences in the cultures of those we have allowed to immigrate in the past, vs the culture of those we are examining today, as well as accounting for differences in volume, and how increased volumes may or may not lead to more cultural dilution than in the past. I'd also ask about the difference in relative standard of living, educational levels, immunization levels between those immigrating in the past to Americans of those time periods to today's situation. And finally I'd ask about any differences in economic impacts to the existing citizens both in the past and today dictated by differences in social safety nets. Again, these are all important questions, and they all need to be examined honestly by all parties involved in the discussion.

My initial thoughts are: What is the purpose of a nation state? Whose interests should a nation state serve? Secondary thoughts, built on the foundation the initial ones established: Is culture important? Are heritage and identity important? Are they valuable enough to deserve protection? How are they best protected?

You haven't gotten off track at all, but rather commented directly on the point I was getting at. This is the single most important part of the conversation, and it's the part that always gets skipped.

I would ask that you consider the idea that on the issue of gun control you have, likely completely unintentionally, skipped over the part examining exactly what I was talking about: what are the end goals of your policy preferences, and what are the under-pinning moral philosophies foundational to their implementation? On the gun debate people are completely talking past each other. You're talking about "reasonable levels of regulation", and yet I'm still back on what fundamental moral philosophy we should construct our system of laws upon. We need to start there, because if we don't, again, there's no point in having the conversation because we're having different conversations. As to what sorts of questions we should be asking in the wake of parkland, I'll add a few for you to consider:

You're advancing fake news.

I think it's incumbent on individuals like you and I to attempt to force this to the forefront. Much like the gun debate, people aren't talking about the same things. They are advancing different moral philosophies, and disguising the tenants of those philosophies in hot button issues without talking about the structural systems, and accompanying foundational belief systems that are necessary to their policy preferences. Policy doesn't happen in a vacuum. It must be purposed towards something, and procedure is more important than individual outcomes. All policy will be better for some people, and worse for others; it's the end goals the policy is both intended to incentivize, and it's unintended consequences which must be examined and debated first. Otherwise, there's no point in having the conversation.

I think, in the interests of intellectual honesty, that those individuals seeking out changes to our immigration policy should outline the end goals of the policy changes they are advocating. And I don't mean bumper sticker slogans, I mean what structural goals is the policy forwarding.

I can put you in touch with someone if you're interested. Feel free to PM me.

Grant is a self described leftist who doesn't subscribe to Enlightenment philosophies. He's a post modernist who seeks out policies which break down traditional social structures like the family, nation state, and the concept of individual rights. It's not that he doesn't understand the issue, it's that he's being dishonest with you about his end goals.

Do you have an estate plan that accounts for it's liquidation? It's something I have in place for my baseball cards. The idea being that your estate will likely lack the expertise you have, and will struggle to deal with your collection when you're gone. Have you considered researching specialty consignment?

I did. I thought it was absolute class that the fans in Turin gave him the ovation that they did as well.

I'm going to recommend a heavy investment in f5 keys.

Yes, because process is more important than individual outcome; and I don't trust the government with that power. Once taxation as punitive is legitimized, the government will use it against it's citizens.

I'd prefer to jail them. Can you think of any reasons it might be a bad idea to empower government to levy taxes punitively?

So would rounding up all of the illegal immigrants, gassing them, and dumping them in mass graves; but it's an immoral action, and we shouldn't be empowering our government to take immoral actions. This is correct. The current view held by many on the left that immigration to the United States is a right, and should be used as a social program for anyone who can manage to get here is a detriment to society, and runs counter to the entire concept of a nation state.

Where I'm from we call them "John Stockons", but I'm absolutely in love with "plum smugglers". Tremendous. And yeah, I know. Phrasing.

Taxation used punitively is immoral.

It's the beginnings of laying out the case in public, connecting the dots from the low level foot soldiers all the way up the food chain. It's essentially a teaser to the imminent IG report.

Would you mind articulating your argument here?

Oh, I doubt very much that's true. I'd love to see this investigated, and if true as Cuga has outlined it, I'd love to see him a) prosecuted if any laws were broken, and b) removed from office. If any of this is true, however, I think he'll be resigning as soon as his work on his current project is completed, and it seems to be wrapping up now.

I was a fan of the elderly black lesbian as well.