Thank you, I'm quite flattered by the comparison.

You are making a strawman argument. Never did I suggest doing any such thing.

You can attempt to draw all the offensive comparisons you want while ignoring the fact it isn't a terribly challenging problem to solve when your wall isn't right through the middle of a major city and isn't easily climbable and isn't the only line of defense. Look at what happened when they put in a complex fencing system in the San Diego zone in the mid 90s: suddenly crossing attempts dropped by over 90%. Nobody got through there, so they all went into the mountains to go around the system.

Simply extend the San Diego system across the rest of the border and have heavy patrols. Anyone damaging the system is imprisoned for a period, then deported to their country of origin. Those who manage to make it through the system are quickly rounded up by the regular patrols and immediately deported to their country of origin. Most will stop trying. The few that remain will be far more easily managed.

Pardon me, but that's bullshit.

Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day; they're building fences, digging trenches, laying sensor grids, and basically doing all the stuff that completely shut down the San Diego zone for crossings and they're doing it 24/7/365 at 125 per mile or one person every 14 yards.

I think that's all way overboard for what we'd need to actually secure (~99% reduction in successful unauthorized crossings) that border, but in any event, don't try to say it's impossible to do. Say we lack the political will. Say we choose not to do it. Say we just aren't interested enough in the problem to do what's necessary to solve it. But don't say it's impossible; that's absurd. I'm not even getting terribly creative here; just sticking boots on the ground and a whole lot more boots than we'd ever actually need at that.

I'm not sure if you're replying to the wrong message or if you've just completely misread what I posted, but I never said people didn't benefit from having an educational system, regardless of whether they have kids. I merely stated that if we're to block kids from public schooling because of the perfectly legal, if likely quite poor parenting choices of their parents, those kids should have the opportunity to be educated just as any other child. And if the goal is to separate the unvaccinated-by-parental-choice kids from the rest, then it makes perfect sense to ensure that tax monies continue to fund their education for exactly the same reasoning you've suggested.

However, if the intent is merely to punish the children of anti-vaccination parents, then by all means let's kick them out of school and ensure their parents have as limited abilities to educate their children as possible so we can perpetuate cycles of ignorance and poverty.

Depends on where you live.

Depends on where you live.

Your search - Google "7200.11" & "firmware update" & "didn't work for me" & "my driver serial ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

        Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
        Try different keywords.
        Try more general keywords.
        Try fewer keywords.

To be fair, a great many of that 42% have little opportunity to save based on the value of the work they're doing. When you're making $18k a year, even if you have no kids, it's nearly impossible to save anything. Now I know what you're going to say - get a better job - but ultimately, someone has to clean the toilets at your office building and that someone isn't going to make more than $18k because that work just isn't that valuable. Increasing everyone's pay is also not a solution as that merely increases prices to compensate and brings down middle class workers.

Of course, there's an argument to be made that such people should give up something they really like - TV, cell phone, something - to invest in a 401k. Putting aside $50/month in something like a 401k or IRA with no employer match turns into about $220,000 over 40 years ($335k over 45). However, that $50/month can be a huge amount to someone at that end of the scale and it'll be the first thing to go when they have a medical issue and need to pay the doctor to get better. Worse, these people often have one or more kids (and I don't know how they make that all work), which proves an even greater drain on what tiny resources they have.

Perhaps part of every welfare program should include some money and financial management counseling.

Stop being ridiculous; they aren't "endangering" anyone. They simply aren't using the medical tools available to reduce the risk of a threat that already exists completely independent of them and their kids. That threat comes from nature. The default state of all people is unvaccinated. They aren't increasing that threat by not getting vaccinated. You're being absurd.

Your irrational fear of the natural world does not entitle you to strap other peoples' children to gurneys and jam needles in their arms.

Of course there is. Once you go down the road of the state reviewing legitimate health and medical decisions made by parents, you're opening the door to all manner of things that busy-bodies like the GP would like to have enforced by the state upon all the other parents. Which is fine with the GP, right up until someone else decides that the GP isn't doing the right thing and comes down on them. Then, suddenly, they'll turn around and play victim, as if they had nothing to do with laying the groundwork for the mess they'll invariably find themselves in.

Doesn't this cause Comcast to forfeit 'Common Carrier' status under laws like the DMCA? My understanding was that ISPs basically said "we can't be held liable for copyright infringement because we can't monitor everything going across our wires for violations" and the government agreed that it all made sense. If Comcast now actually can monitor all the content rolling across its wires without any apparent undue burden, can't every copyright owner then sue Comcast for infringement if it isn't actively removing unlawfully distributed copyrighted works from its wires?

In other words, can't I copyright a 10 second video of myself slamming my head against a wall, then upload it to Bit Torrent with a clearly written copyright notice stating that one must send me a check for $50 Billion to view the clip, then sue Comcast into oblivion when someone on their network actually downloads it?

Let's play the prosecutors' game!

8) Destruction of evidence
9) Obstruction of justice
10) Witness tampering
11) Deprivation of rights under color of law
12) Criminal conspiracy
13) Possession of a firearm during commission of a crime

Should be able to get about 40+ years worth of charges in play, then plea bargain it down to 5 years in prison for each officer involved. Between that and the 7 mill in cash in compensation for the victim, I'd say that makes everyone square.

I could not agree more. Subject the police to the same laws as everyone else when not in the performance of their duties (and hold them to strict scrutiny while in performance) and when some of these guys start going to prison, the rest will pay a whole lot more attention to the line between lawful and unlawful.

And sometimes the best of hammers will mangle a perfectly good nail. Yes, the tools we have are imperfect; no one is disputing that.

Whoa whoa whoa, stop right there. The default state of a human body is unvaccinated. No one is removing a vaccine from themselves. No one is removing antibodies from themselves in an effort to make themselves or others more susceptible to disease. The default state is unvaccinated. It isn't about "if too many people decide not to", it's "if enough people decide to do it... positive things can happen". And yes, there's a huge difference. See the previous post.

I completely understand that. However, you need to understand that disease is part of the human existence. Don't want to deal with disease? Stop being alive; that fixes the problem. Otherwise, accept the existence of risk and understand that your desire to minimize your risk and the risk of your loved ones does not entitle you or the government to strap a child to a gurney, jam needles in their arm, and pump them full of drugs (albeit very good and beneficial drugs).

Vaccines are a wonderful tool of modern medicine. The fact that that tool's effectiveness increases when more people make use of it does not entitle you or anyone else to force others to make use of that tool. You are not entitled to a risk-free or even a risk-reduced existence. The default state of a human being is naked, defenseless, and susceptible to all manner of diseases and predators. The fact that you're now safer than any other human being in the history of the planet ought to be enough. You have no right to perfect safety and you have no right to force others to help you get closer to perfect safety.

No, you appear to think that everyone else is doing as well as you are. There are plenty of families barely putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads with two incomes. There are plenty of single mothers and fathers who aren't even doing that well. Homeschooling is not an option for them. It simply isn't.

Yes, I am. You seem to be advocating that people who make different decisions than you or I might should be punished by the state. That's not just unreasonable, that's tyrannical. These people have every right to be idiots and if you don't want their kids in school with your kids, free up the tax money so they can send them somewhere else. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL EVERYONE ELSE'S LIFE AND START JUST LIVING YOUR OWN!

That's not only absurd, but requires the kind of despotic tyranny many would fight with force of arms. Let's take it in another direction so maybe you'll see just how ridiculous it is. How about a law requiring everyone to be armed with a loaded M-16 in public? After all, there are all kinds of threats in the natural world that can be significantly reduced when lots of people have M-16s. Therefore, everyone must always have an M-16, fully loaded and ready to fire, while out in public so the public can be protected from physical threats.

It's also stupidly backwards. People who are not vaccinated are not some kind of super-threat we need to be protected from. They're simply not using the tools of modern medicine to reduce a threat which already exists and has for millions of years. And those threats are quite few among the natural world. If 0% of the population is vaccinated against a disease, then the threat is at the NORMAL level found in NATURE. As more people get vaccinated, that threat is reduced. Does that fact make it right to strap unwilling citizens (children, no less!) to a gurney and jam a needle full of drugs into their arms so they can be injected against their will? No, it does not. To say otherwise is to invite all kinds of other dictatorial bullshit and eventually it'll be the kind of dictatorial bullshit you won't like.

Of course, you won't be able to do anything about it by then.