|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28665 Posts
On February 15 2014 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 12:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Even so, do you support the principle that prisons can (or even should) be run on a for-profit basis? I don't think it's a problem. It's come up before on this tread and the arguments against are pretty weak.
Personally I think high incarceration rates reflects really poorly on a society, and I think it's fucked to have any societal actor of significance who actually wants higher incarceration rates. Privatized education and health care I can understand, because they actually are trying to provide a good and useful service. Private prisons want more prisoners because they make money from them - > actively trying to make society worse.
It's kinda like having health care services that aim to make the population sicker so they need more treatment.
|
Private prisons have a double incentive not to rehabilitate. It costs them money to do it AND reduces demand for their services in the long run. And they also have the incentive to lobby for laws that put as many new people in prison as possible, whether or not that is best for society, such as in the case of non-violent drug charges. Privatization can make sense in a number of areas, but this not one of them. Our incarceration rate is the highest in the world, and while I don't think the private prison system is the most important factor in that it is counterproductive and shouldn't exist at all.
|
United States6277 Posts
On February 15 2014 19:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 14:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 15 2014 12:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Even so, do you support the principle that prisons can (or even should) be run on a for-profit basis? I don't think it's a problem. It's come up before on this tread and the arguments against are pretty weak. Personally I think high incarceration rates reflects really poorly on a society, and I think it's fucked to have any societal actor of significance who actually wants higher incarceration rates. Privatized education and health care I can understand, because they actually are trying to provide a good and useful service. Private prisons want more prisoners because they make money from them - > actively trying to make society worse. It's kinda like having health care services that aim to make the population sicker so they need more treatment.
That's a trivial point though. The incentive to make society worse by having more prisoners is way to small to move the needle in any decision making process.
Public prisons involve people with a vested interest in keeping the number of prisoners high as well. Police officers have a vested interest in keeping crime high.
Just because an interest exists doesn't make it a relevant factor.
|
I feel like the problem is that the financial reward is somewhat divorced from the actual desired outcome. They're essentially paid for keeping a prisoner alive and not letting them escape, which is only the most basic function of a prison. There's no incentive in the structure - as far as I'm aware - for the correctional side of the equation, which is where all the problems come from.
I wonder if there is any way you could pull off a system where the prisons are paid less for repeat offenders, or given a bonus for each prisoner who doesn't reoffend within x years, or something...
|
On February 15 2014 17:36 Introvert wrote:In other news: Show nested quote +Less than two weeks after President Obama insisted that there wasn't even a "smidgen of corruption" involved in the IRS targeting scandal, it appears that the scope of that scandal is widening.
Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, revealed yesterday that the committee's investigation had found that it wasn't only conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status that came in for IRS targeting and harassment. Existing 501(c)(4)'s were targeted, as well. In fact, Camp stated,
At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83% were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100% were right-leaning. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2014/02/12/surprised-all-501c4s-audited-by-irs-were-conservative-n1793833I haven't seen any thinkprogress or mediamatters articles "debunking" this, and if it's true it pokes more holes into the administration's claims that they were acting impartially. In different times, the public would be clamoring for an independent investigation and not stopping until figurative heads rolled. Now the phony scandal angle has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Nobody would think to use the IRS to punish political opponents and curb their voter registration drives. Had their only been a Republican in the White House, there would be a special prosecutor for any admin official taking the fifth, and a cloud of suspicion over the executive until resolution.
Speaking of the administration/bureaucracy, the EPA made news recently. Wholesale transferred a million acres of land and an entire city of 10,000 to some Native American tribes. It's done and now Wyoming's gotta try to sue in federal court to get it reversed. No debate, no legislative process, it's fiat and they have no say in it. Recourse? It's done, and now the fight is to reverse it.
|
Instead of the Trail of Tears we're gonna call it the Plight of the Whites.
|
On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 15:34 Sub40APM wrote:On February 15 2014 15:27 Introvert wrote:On February 15 2014 15:08 Danglars wrote:Joe "You Lie" Wilson is getting his just rewards now. Maybe you remember ...
In 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) apologized profusely to the White House for shouting, "You lie!" as President Barack Obama told Congress that Obamacare would not cover illegal immigrants. Now it would appear that the White House owes Wilson an apology, as Covered California--the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges--is recruiting illegal ("undocumented") immigrants to sign up for the program, regardless of their eligibility.
The Covered California website includes a special page entitled: "No temas si eres indocumentado/a y quieres inscribir a tu familia en un seguro médico" ("Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance"). The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible.
sourceThere's a lot of spanish-speaking immigrants near where I live, so just going about daily life I saw a lot of Covered California ads in Spanish with a hispanic presenter detailing all the wonderful things about it (leads with pre-existing conditions covered yay). They're marketing the Obamacare exchanges on many bus stops and there's a signup tent in a parking lot 2 blocks away. Something about that Obamacare ad in Spanish made me wonder if they were marketing this to illegal aliens to boost signups. All this in clear violation of Obama's promise before Congress (and does anybody see him chastising CA for doing this, ever?) This is why the Republicans are idiotic to think that they will ever win the Hispanic vote. It's crap like this that will make immigrants perpetual welfare-state-using-democrats. Asian Americans and Jewish Americans also vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats and they are both statistically financially better of than whites.... The difference is the time frame. These newer Hispanic immigrants have come after the massive growth of the welfare states. It's not like the Irish, etc in the Industrial Revolution, or the Jews in WWII. They didn't have a system to feed off of. I think it was Milton Freedman who made the point that you can't have wide open immigration and a welfare state at the same time. In the late 19th-mid 20th century, we didn't have those two things. Now we do. Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
...most Asian Americans moved here after the New Deal and a significant number of high performing Jews grew up in the public projects of the welfare state you hate...
|
On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:
Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
Under the top 9 countries by foreign born population are Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. (Canada and Australia also exceed the US in terms of immigrants as % of national population). All of these countries have extensive welfare programs and universal healthcare.
Edit: whoops doublepost, please delete this one
|
On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:
Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
Under the top 9 countries by foreign born population are Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. (Canada and Australia also exceed the US in terms of immigrants as % of national population). All of these countries have extensive welfare programs and universal healthcare.
But I don't know if you were being sarcastic because you also called the US a welfare state.
|
On February 16 2014 04:49 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:
Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
Under the top 9 countries by foreign born population are Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. (Canada and Australia also exceed the US in terms of immigrants as % of national population). All of these countries have extensive welfare programs and universal healthcare. But I don't know if you were being sarcastic because you also called the US a welfare state.
it sounds to me like Introvert has had some unfortunate personal experiences with Hispanic immigrants to California that might be...coloring...his view on people of color.
|
On February 16 2014 05:25 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 04:49 Nyxisto wrote:On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:
Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
Under the top 9 countries by foreign born population are Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. (Canada and Australia also exceed the US in terms of immigrants as % of national population). All of these countries have extensive welfare programs and universal healthcare. But I don't know if you were being sarcastic because you also called the US a welfare state. it sounds to me like Introvert has had some unfortunate personal experiences with Hispanic immigrants to California that might be...coloring...his view on people of color. When in doubt, allege racism and personal injury. Politicians playing the race card since who knows when. Stay classy.
|
On February 16 2014 05:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 05:25 Sub40APM wrote:On February 16 2014 04:49 Nyxisto wrote:On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:
Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
Under the top 9 countries by foreign born population are Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. (Canada and Australia also exceed the US in terms of immigrants as % of national population). All of these countries have extensive welfare programs and universal healthcare. But I don't know if you were being sarcastic because you also called the US a welfare state. it sounds to me like Introvert has had some unfortunate personal experiences with Hispanic immigrants to California that might be...coloring...his view on people of color. When in doubt, allege racism and personal injury. Politicians playing the race card since who knows when. Stay classy. I am not in doubt, he keeps making allegations about immigrants that arent supported by facts, but when he colors those allegations with commentary on the way that california is 'overrun' by Mexicans it makes more sense. I am still trying to figure out what makes you tick Danglers-Malkin
|
On February 16 2014 04:43 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:On February 15 2014 15:34 Sub40APM wrote:On February 15 2014 15:27 Introvert wrote:On February 15 2014 15:08 Danglars wrote:Joe "You Lie" Wilson is getting his just rewards now. Maybe you remember ...
In 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) apologized profusely to the White House for shouting, "You lie!" as President Barack Obama told Congress that Obamacare would not cover illegal immigrants. Now it would appear that the White House owes Wilson an apology, as Covered California--the flagship of state Obamacare exchanges--is recruiting illegal ("undocumented") immigrants to sign up for the program, regardless of their eligibility.
The Covered California website includes a special page entitled: "No temas si eres indocumentado/a y quieres inscribir a tu familia en un seguro médico" ("Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance"). The website goes on to explain that information shared with Obamacare cannot be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It does not explicitly warn that illegal aliens are ineligible.
sourceThere's a lot of spanish-speaking immigrants near where I live, so just going about daily life I saw a lot of Covered California ads in Spanish with a hispanic presenter detailing all the wonderful things about it (leads with pre-existing conditions covered yay). They're marketing the Obamacare exchanges on many bus stops and there's a signup tent in a parking lot 2 blocks away. Something about that Obamacare ad in Spanish made me wonder if they were marketing this to illegal aliens to boost signups. All this in clear violation of Obama's promise before Congress (and does anybody see him chastising CA for doing this, ever?) This is why the Republicans are idiotic to think that they will ever win the Hispanic vote. It's crap like this that will make immigrants perpetual welfare-state-using-democrats. Asian Americans and Jewish Americans also vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats and they are both statistically financially better of than whites.... The difference is the time frame. These newer Hispanic immigrants have come after the massive growth of the welfare states. It's not like the Irish, etc in the Industrial Revolution, or the Jews in WWII. They didn't have a system to feed off of. I think it was Milton Freedman who made the point that you can't have wide open immigration and a welfare state at the same time. In the late 19th-mid 20th century, we didn't have those two things. Now we do. Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative. ...most Asian Americans moved here after the New Deal and a significant number of high performing Jews grew up in the public projects of the welfare state you hate...
I'm saying that before there were two things that were important: being able to provide for yourself and assimilation.
Nowadays we reinforce the idea that A) your poverty is not your fault, B) that it can't be helped without government intervention (how's that working out?), and C), that you don't need to learn the language and customs of your new country. This is a recipe for continued poverty. Even well known democrats of the last century knew that.
This applies as well to what Nyxisto said (thanks for the stats btw), though I wonder what their standards are. Do they have large amounts of poor, illiterate Hispanics coming in?
The US has a welfare state, just because it's not Europe doesn't mean there isn't one.
it sounds to me like Introvert has had some unfortunate personal experiences with Hispanic immigrants to California that might be...coloring...his view on people of color.
Normally your posts are interesting or at least worth responding to, but this is nice bit of trash that says a lot. Or maybe you were just going for the funny coloring line.
At any rate, no. I've never had an "unfortunate experience" with any immigrant. Immigration is awesome, I think it's cool that people are willing to leave whatever place they used to call home and live here, recognizing that it contains a better chance to get ahead than wherever they were. Not that you'll hear that from the Democrat politicians.
I live in CA, I've been around them my entire life. I do, however, dislike lawbreakers regardless of color, sex, or orientation.
I am not in doubt, he keeps making allegations about immigrants that arent supported by facts, but when he colors those allegations with commentary on the way that california is 'overrun' by Mexicans it makes more sense. I am still trying to figure out what makes you tick Danglers-Malkin
What allegations? That we have a welfare state?
I ASKED about stats for Europe, I made no allegation or presumption. In fact, I am still asking about it because I want to know more.
My statements about the time difference between then and now still stands. We treat immigrants today differently then we treated them back then. Now, instead of assimilation, we tell them "no, you don't have to learn English." How can that help their financial and cultural situation? Do you see what my point was? Back then immigrants were expected to contribute something, since they didn't have disability, benefits from children citizens, etc. They learned how to speak English, how to work hard, and contribute to the political and cultural melting pot. Now we have a salad. How can you expect someone illiterate in their own language (not to mention ours) to be of any benefit to society or the political process?
|
On February 16 2014 08:53 Introvert wrote:
I ASKED about stats for Europe, I made no allegation or presumption. In fact, I am still asking about it because I want to know more.
Yeah for starters you could read my post which i accidentally even posted twice.
If there's one correlation that exists then it is that countries with open borders and a lot of immigrants profit greatly from it.
|
On February 16 2014 09:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 08:53 Introvert wrote:
I ASKED about stats for Europe, I made no allegation or presumption. In fact, I am still asking about it because I want to know more.
Yeah for starters you could read my post which i accidentally even posted twice. If there's one correlation that exists then it is that countries with open borders and a lot of immigrants profit greatly from it.
I had a follow up question. What type of people are these immigrants? Are they other Europeans? Maybe Eeastern Europeans? Edit: What about illegals?
As the whole of my post should have made clear, I'm not of the opinion that immigrants=bad-for-country. Exactly the opposite. I'm arguing that bringing in lots of poor, illiterate immigrants who don't really contribute or are not actively involved is a detriment and strain on the society. Even democrats like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. knew that. If people come in, assimilation is the best way for them to proceed. Not setting up a mini-mexico that needs government funds.
|
On February 16 2014 09:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 09:07 Nyxisto wrote:On February 16 2014 08:53 Introvert wrote:
I ASKED about stats for Europe, I made no allegation or presumption. In fact, I am still asking about it because I want to know more.
Yeah for starters you could read my post which i accidentally even posted twice. If there's one correlation that exists then it is that countries with open borders and a lot of immigrants profit greatly from it. I had a follow up question. What type of people are these immigrants? Are they other Europeans? Maybe Eeastern Europeans? As the whole of my post should have made clear, I'm not of the opinion that immigrants=bad-for-country. Exactly the opposite. I'm arguing that bringing in lots of poor, illiterate immigrants who don't really contribute or are not actively involved is a detriment and strain on the society. Even democrats like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. knew that. If people come in, assimilation is the best way for them to proceed. Not setting up a mini-mexico that needs government funds.
In Germany most immigrants are Turkish guest workers and their children. Most of them aren't really assimilated. I don't think that's a bad thing but the general opinion is they should be integrated more.They're basically what the Hispanic community is in the US. Eastern Europeans are the second largest group of immigrants and are way more integrated than Turkish immigrants.
Thing is you'll always have hick ups when you have a lot of immigration, but the positives just outweigh the negative effects immensely . You'll also always have one group of immigrants that the majority likes to blame everything on, which I think is really stupid.
And I don't really think that assimilation is a very good idea. You shouldn't force people to give up their identity, especially if the reason for it is that Western countries have resentments against Islamic culture. For example the city Düsseldorf has a really big Japanese community, with own schools and kindergartens and what not and no one really gives a shit. But if someone tries to build a mosque somewhere everyone's acting like the world is going to end.
|
On February 16 2014 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 09:26 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2014 09:07 Nyxisto wrote:On February 16 2014 08:53 Introvert wrote:
I ASKED about stats for Europe, I made no allegation or presumption. In fact, I am still asking about it because I want to know more.
Yeah for starters you could read my post which i accidentally even posted twice. If there's one correlation that exists then it is that countries with open borders and a lot of immigrants profit greatly from it. I had a follow up question. What type of people are these immigrants? Are they other Europeans? Maybe Eeastern Europeans? As the whole of my post should have made clear, I'm not of the opinion that immigrants=bad-for-country. Exactly the opposite. I'm arguing that bringing in lots of poor, illiterate immigrants who don't really contribute or are not actively involved is a detriment and strain on the society. Even democrats like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. knew that. If people come in, assimilation is the best way for them to proceed. Not setting up a mini-mexico that needs government funds. In Germany most immigrants are Turkish guest workers and their children. Most of them aren't really assimilated. I don't think that's a bad thing but the general opinion is they should be integrated more.They're basically what the Hispanic community is in the US. Eastern Europeans are the second largest group of immigrants and are way more integrated than Turkish immigrants. Thing is you'll always have hick ups when you have a lot of immigration, but the positives just outweigh the negative effects immensely . You'll also always have one group of immigrants that the majority likes to blame everything on, which I think is really stupid. And I don't really think that assimilation is a very good idea. You shouldn't force people to give up their identity, especially if the reason for it is that Western countries have resentments against Islamic culture. For example the city Düsseldorf has a really big Japanese community, with own schools and kindergartens and what not and no one really gives a shit. But if someone tries to build a mosque somewhere everyone's acting like the world is going to end.
I'm not asking them to drop everything (those cultured areas are cool!), but at a basic level they ought to know something. They ought to attempt to be informed, they ought to have basic skills, and they ought to be slowly becoming a part of the society they now interact with. And, they ought to come here LEGALLY. You cannot expect them to contribute in the long run if they are constantly told that A) you don't need to follow the law, and B) that you can act as if this your home country. You can keep some customs and traditions, but you cannot replicate a foreign state on foreign soil. What country has survived that? The Irish may have come in large numbers in the mid-late 19th century and had their own areas of cities, etc, but they all became Americans, and identified as such. They voted, they were informed, they could read about what was going on. None of that is true now. Despite the war on poverty and amnesty in 1986, the situation for Hispanic immigrants still sucks.
And I'm not blaming everything on them (Obamacare will suck with or without them), this is just an issue right now because talk was going around of legalizing millions of "undocumented" people.
|
Why exactly are there so many illegal people in the US? Are they just fleeing out of Mexico?
|
On February 16 2014 10:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 09:58 Nyxisto wrote:On February 16 2014 09:26 Introvert wrote:On February 16 2014 09:07 Nyxisto wrote:On February 16 2014 08:53 Introvert wrote:
I ASKED about stats for Europe, I made no allegation or presumption. In fact, I am still asking about it because I want to know more.
Yeah for starters you could read my post which i accidentally even posted twice. If there's one correlation that exists then it is that countries with open borders and a lot of immigrants profit greatly from it. I had a follow up question. What type of people are these immigrants? Are they other Europeans? Maybe Eeastern Europeans? As the whole of my post should have made clear, I'm not of the opinion that immigrants=bad-for-country. Exactly the opposite. I'm arguing that bringing in lots of poor, illiterate immigrants who don't really contribute or are not actively involved is a detriment and strain on the society. Even democrats like Arthur Schlesinger Jr. knew that. If people come in, assimilation is the best way for them to proceed. Not setting up a mini-mexico that needs government funds. In Germany most immigrants are Turkish guest workers and their children. Most of them aren't really assimilated. I don't think that's a bad thing but the general opinion is they should be integrated more.They're basically what the Hispanic community is in the US. Eastern Europeans are the second largest group of immigrants and are way more integrated than Turkish immigrants. Thing is you'll always have hick ups when you have a lot of immigration, but the positives just outweigh the negative effects immensely . You'll also always have one group of immigrants that the majority likes to blame everything on, which I think is really stupid. And I don't really think that assimilation is a very good idea. You shouldn't force people to give up their identity, especially if the reason for it is that Western countries have resentments against Islamic culture. For example the city Düsseldorf has a really big Japanese community, with own schools and kindergartens and what not and no one really gives a shit. But if someone tries to build a mosque somewhere everyone's acting like the world is going to end. I'm not asking them to drop everything (those cultured areas are cool!), but at a basic level they ought to know something. They ought to attempt to be informed, they ought to have basic skills, and they ought to be slowly becoming a part of the society they now interact with. And, they ought to come here LEGALLY. You cannot expect them to contribute in the long run if they are constantly told that A) you don't need to follow the law, and B) that you can act as if this your home country. You can keep some customs and traditions, but you cannot replicate a foreign state on foreign soil. What country has survived that? The Irish may have come in large numbers in the mid-late 19th century and had their own areas of cities, etc, but they all became Americans, and identified as such. They voted, they were informed, they could read about what was going on. None of that is true now. Despite the war on poverty and amnesty in 1986, the situation for Hispanic immigrants still sucks. And I'm not blaming everything on them (Obamacare will suck with or without them), this is just an issue right now because talk was going around of legalizing millions of "undocumented" people.
It sucks specifically because we put such a huge stigma against the way in which they came here. Why would they trust local authorities, try to vote, trust the community, and/or try to assimilate if they are being targeted to be shipped back to Mexico? Your logic is ass-backwards. They're not going to want to do anything for this country if they always have to live in fear that the country is going to send them back at any moment.
|
On February 16 2014 07:30 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2014 05:43 Danglars wrote:On February 16 2014 05:25 Sub40APM wrote:On February 16 2014 04:49 Nyxisto wrote:On February 15 2014 15:37 Introvert wrote:
Edit: A question: Aren't the European states with large social programs very closed off in terms of immigration? A "yes" answer would be quite informative.
Under the top 9 countries by foreign born population are Germany, France, Canada, and Australia. (Canada and Australia also exceed the US in terms of immigrants as % of national population). All of these countries have extensive welfare programs and universal healthcare. But I don't know if you were being sarcastic because you also called the US a welfare state. it sounds to me like Introvert has had some unfortunate personal experiences with Hispanic immigrants to California that might be...coloring...his view on people of color. When in doubt, allege racism and personal injury. Politicians playing the race card since who knows when. Stay classy. I am not in doubt, he keeps making allegations about immigrants that arent supported by facts, but when he colors those allegations with commentary on the way that california is 'overrun' by Mexicans it makes more sense. I am still trying to figure out what makes you tick Danglers-Malkin If you will use 'overrun' in quotations, please at least pick a word he actually used. It's only fair. If we want to have a debate (and arguably nobody does lately) about guest workers, citizenship, border security, welfare state, and other immigration-related topics, going on these vicious assaults on the person goes against both the spirit of the thread and debate in general. See a racist sexist bigot homophobe behind every tree, but keep it to yourself. At least when you debate the policies and rule of law, analyze the argument, not psychoanalyze the arguer.
I might call you Seb40Epm from time to time since you appear to like using vowel in all good fun, but I don't know why you need to name call. Remember, you're above that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
