TakeYouToTasker

It's vital to note, in regards to the desire in some circles for greatly enhanced border security on our Southern border without matching enthusiasm for similar actions to be taken with our neighbor to the North, that you don't put band-aids in places you aren't bleeding. We don't have an immigration problem with Canada.

Speaking from the perspective of the person you just described, I'd say those are lousy qualifiers.

That's a red herring. First of all, historical tax rate norms have nothing to do with their morality. For the overwhelming majority of human history various forms of slavery and hard castes were the accepted norm. Does that mean we should return to the policy of those time periods? Second, your argument leaves out the effective rates of actual taxes paid during those eras, in which the tax code was very different, allowing for all manner of deductions.

Netflix can't pass along their costs to anyone but their customers.

In a world with no net neutrality, the people who are consumers of Netflix will foot the bill. In a world with net neutrality everyone will carry the freight for the people actually doing the consuming.

You think Moore doesn't understand? Can you think of any reasons why Roy Moore might not tell an interviewer that he won't debate because he's being accused of being a pedophile?

Can you think of any reasons why it might not be politically advantageous to debate?

And there's the rub. The idiocy of advancing the idea that because people travel freely between states they should be able to do so between countries is staggering, ignores multiple realities and makes many flawed assumptions. The first troublesome assumption it makes is that because free travel between states exists that is always desirable. The fact the free travel between states is the legal norm does confer on to it special status. Take, for example, the current situation in California in regards to secession. The people of California (and in prior years, citizens of Texas) are seeking to sever a 167 year old bond because of political differences they find to be irreconcilable. I understand the priori assumption that it is the right of a free people to travel, but the freedom of travel does not extend to places where an external authority has forbidden you to go by exercising it's just authority over it's own property or territory. The freedom of travel is a red herring here, as it applies to the government of a free people disallowing travel to a destination they do not exercise jurisdiction over; not to the sovereign body holding jurisdiction restricting travel into it's property/territory by foreign nationals. Distilled down to the most basic level, the freedom to travel does not grant you the authority to stand in my yard if I don't want you there. The case can be made that it is in the best economic interests of most involved to permit free movement, but you'll notice "economic" modifies interests here; and that there are compelling competing interests which are not economic in nature. The bare assertion that the only interests to be considered are economic (which is a blanket statement made in a vacuum without consideration given to expenses of services consumed under a welfare state) is a flawed Utilitarian argument under which the harms of minimizing opposing interests are under stated and the value of maximizing the interests of travel are overstated, and represent only the subjective valuations of the individual advancing the case with complete disregard for opposing valuations. The people of California seem to value their culture, and the enforcement of laws unique to them, to the point that they are seeking to disassociate with the United States as an act of political freedom. It serves to reason, then, that they also might wish to restrict migration from areas which hold viewpoints that run counter to their desire to secede.

Thanks gents. Much appreciated.

Any link to the full text of the decision? Can't do research right now, and hoping someone might summarize.

I'm done with this jackass' particular brand of stupid. If any of you with more patience than I have are looking for a new cat toy, feel free.

Maybe I'll answer if you just act more entitled, obtuse, and anti-social? Perhaps you'd consider calling me a racist xenophobe again, absent evidence, and surely then I'd leap at the opportunity to please you? What's wrong with you?

You might have the largest unearned sense of entitlement I've ever encountered, demanding answers from strangers you hurl insults at.

Your inability to take personal responsibility for how you present yourself, doubling down now with more ad hominem fiat declarations as a substitute for quality, is your entire reputation here. You don't dictate terms to anyone here, and when you try to, you come off as petulant and ignorant. An exchange in this medium is an appeal to all those reading to give their personal standard of merit to your case. I'll stake my reputation to my words in regard to your charges. Unfortunately for you, you're also staking your reputation to your charges. I've already told you that I don't reason with unreasonable people. If you want to have a conversation with me you know exactly what you need to do first, because I've educated you in that regard. I have no idea why you thought this would be a strong tack to take, but you're failing miserably, and I won't speak for others, but I doubt very much you're impressing anyone with your attempts, or that anyone here, having seen your style, will much care what you have to say going forward. So if that was your goal, good work.

Do you typically walk up to a bunch of strangers, call them all racists, and then demand that they acquiesce to your preferences in conversation? How does that work out for you? Also, you don't think searchable history of prior posts is relevant in determining "what we all know" about each other? Again, you're out of your depth here.

One of us has a nearly 15,000 post count, almost all of them in this sub-forum, fully searchable posting history, securing a reputation largely as reasonable and introspective. The other showed up 10 minutes ago espousing a stack of logically inconsistent positions, and called everyone who disagreed with him a racist, and then doubled down when called out for it. If "we all know" something here, it isn't what you think we all know. You are way out of your depth here.

You'll keep waiting. I'm done conversing with you, and will simply talk at you, or past you using you as an example for other posters from this point forward, as you're either unwilling or unable to behave like a reasonable adult. So feel free to sit there, smug in your obstinate refusal to take personal responsibility for the lack of quality you presented with your unfounded charges of racism. And as I said, I'll be here to tear your position to pieces once you've asked mea culpa and have decided to be the sort of person worth discussing ideas with; because if you can't be bothered to conduct yourself in accordance with the minimum acceptable standards of social interaction, what's the point of continuing with you?

You think you've pinned anyone into a corner? You lack the skill for that. No, you haven't earned the privilege of having this conversation. People who lead with unfounded charges of racism don't get a seat at the table where ideas are discussed. They are race baiting shitheels, and they are not welcome. I haven't decided if you're intellectually dishonest, or if you've simply ghettoized your mind through a combination of self-aggrandizement and a lack reasoning skills; but either way I don't reason with unreasonable people, and individuals who lead as you have aren't reasonable, and their ideas won't be given merit through their debate. You will either ask mea culpa for your prior bull ****, and meter your tone, or you will not sit at the adult table. Once you've done that, I'm more than happy to tear your argument to shreds.

No, let's not be specific. You haven't earned that. You led with unfounded accusations of racism in the vein of Saul Alinski, and thus far have been unrepentant. At best, we're having an conceptual conversation about the purpose of a the nation state, and the right of a people to exist and preserve their national identity as enshrined by the establishment of their countries; but I'm not interested in having that conversation with you at this point because thus far you've done nothing more than be an ignorant, race baiting piece of ****. Everything I've posted in response to you so far has been for the sole purpose of exposing your bull ****. Want more? Offer more.

It would certainly be a justification, were there to occur some impetus that began to drive hordes of Texans into California, absolutely. And again, this is an example within the domestic United States, where cultural differences and relative prosperity, are far less disparate. When we start talking about individuals from other national origins those disparities grow much larger. The argument you seem to be making is against the concept of the nation state. If you'd like to make that case, please do; but understand you'll have a lot of work to do.

There are massive impacts over time of cultural shifts even within the United States due to mass migration. Some of this is best evidenced by retirees from liberal strongholds in the North East moving to Southern states to take advantage of their tax advantages and lower property valuations, and then casting their ballots to implement the tax structures they fled in their native states in their new homes. Do you think mass migration from Texas to California, or vice-versa, would have any major cultural implications? If not, do you think there are any significant differences in culture between Texas and California? And that is only within the domestic United States. Other countries have vastly different cultures and value systems. Even at the interstate level he's barking up the wrong tree. There are major cultural differences within the United States.

The above post does nothing other than demonstrate an inability to reason; and displays an immediate report to your own conformation biases, rather than a desire to be introspective an actually understand other people's arguments. It's a microcosm of the tragedy of the echo chambers created social media, and the rush to Alinsky-ize, by personalizing and then demonizing, political positions via ugly fiat declarations as a substitute for debating on merits. There are plenty of good reasons to restrict immigration; beginning with the entire purpose of the nation state, which is designed to protect the culture, property, and laws of people. With that in mind, if you can't honestly sit down and try to reason out why someone might oppose unfettered immigration, you aren't worth discussing anything with.

I'll just point out that making bare assertions of racism over political differences is: a) not conducive to forwarding conversation, and b) !@#$ing retarded. You have been wildly logically inconsistent in your brief posting history here. I'd encourage you to examine this.

Hughes you !@#$ing retard.

Tyrod done for the year.