# Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year



## bripat9643

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
_President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
_
*How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
_The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . ._​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sure.


----------



## Spare_change

Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!

Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure.




Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....


----------



## KeiserC

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




Register all the illegals and give them the choice to work construction on the wall for a stipend & lodging  (or) be deported back from whence they came.  Not really harsh, actually it's quite beneficent.... family members not able to work on the wall stay where they are as long as able body family members are on the wall project. Those without able body workers in their family unit... adios.  There are plenty of poor citizens in my neck of the woods that are more deserving and actually more "entitled" to what insufficient public assistance there is.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



Great. When will Mexico send the check?


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??


They are "facts" because some random douche on the innertubes asserts so, or because said random douche is endorsed by Bripat?


----------



## rightwinger

We make money off of illegals

That is why they are here


----------



## Luddly Neddite

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​





Wrong.

The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.

Right?

[emoji849]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## The Original Tree

We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.

Build the damn wall and we actually save money.


----------



## Reasonable

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency. 
In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Reasonable said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency.
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
Click to expand...


They have solid evidence of what? That Russia leaked evidence to the press that Hillary was a corrupt lying bitch....and what was wrong with that?


----------



## Onyx

Illegal immigrants in America pay more in taxes than they receive in state benefits. The net economic benefit that they provide through working is also positive. 

You should stop sourcing information from openly biased op-ed media. In other words, stop using fake news.


----------



## Onyx

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here



Respected think tanks have been coming to that conclusion for years.

Let's also get over this absurd notion that a wall will stop immigration.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here


 I don't make money off of illegals.  Perhaps the leftwing 1% douche bags like George Soros and Hillary do, but I the average worker doesn't.  He gets fucked up the ass.


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> Illegal immigrants in America pay more in taxes than they receive in state benefits. The net economic benefit that they provide through working is also positive.
> 
> You should stop sourcing information from openly biased op-ed media. In other words, stop using fake news.


Does that include the welfare and unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?



Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!


----------



## Clementine

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...



In the long run, it will save us billions so, no, it won't cost us anything.    It will cost Mexico billions in remittances and drug money.


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
Click to expand...

Importing cheap labor from the third world leads to a third world standard of living for Americans.

How can any American support that?


----------



## Marion Morrison

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> They are "facts" because some random douche on the innertubes asserts so, or because said random douche is endorsed by Bripat?
Click to expand...


So you have facts to counter bripat9643's info correct?

Oh! No? 

Well dang! Your leftist opinion is duly noted and resoundingly dismissed.

Poof! Be gone, fairy.


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> Importing cheap labor from the third world leads to a third world standard of living for Americans.



That isn't actually a real correlation. Almost every first world country today has experienced large waves of third world immigration in the past.


----------



## JQPublic1

Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.



undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.



The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.



They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.



From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!


----------



## Onyx

JQPublic1 said:


> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!



Most economists gravitate towards free trade and full immigration.


----------



## Brain357

*“But We Need Illegal Immigration To Grow The Economy”*
Some argue that we need illegal immigration to grow the economy and maintain our quality of life.  They’re wrong.

Why?


It’s simply untrue.  Just look at places like Japan.  Japan has very little immigration, and yet is able to maintain its high standard of living by investing in better technology, and becoming more efficient.  They can still afford their morning cup of coffee, don’t worry.
This guy serious?  Japan's economy been stagnant forever.


----------



## Brain357

Since the wall won't work, isn't that just adding to the cost?


----------



## JQPublic1

bear513 said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency.
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have solid evidence of what? That Russia leaked evidence to the press that Hillary was a corrupt lying bitch....and what was wrong with that?
Click to expand...


My problem with that is the Russians didn't leak evidence to the press that Trump is a corrupt lying bitch... a lot is wrong with that! But I guess they didn't have to.  Corrupt, narcissistic Trump can tell blatant lie after blatant lie and people like you don't care.


----------



## Brain357

I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?


----------



## JQPublic1

Brain357 said:


> Since the wall won't work, isn't that just adding to the cost?


 And the walls of Jericho came tumbling down!


----------



## Brain357

JQPublic1 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the wall won't work, isn't that just adding to the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> And the walls of Jericho came tumbling down!
Click to expand...


I believe the wall will be 30' tall...
Werner 40 ft. Aluminum Extension Ladder with 250 lb. Load Capacity Type I Duty Rating-D1340-2 - The Home Depot


----------



## Onyx

Brain357 said:


> *“But We Need Illegal Immigration To Grow The Economy”*
> Some argue that we need illegal immigration to grow the economy and maintain our quality of life.  They’re wrong.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It’s simply untrue.  Just look at places like Japan.  Japan has very little immigration, and yet is able to maintain its high standard of living by investing in better technology, and becoming more efficient.  They can still afford their morning cup of coffee, don’t worry.
> .



Yeah, what a dumb argument!

Let's just ignore the fact that it is attempting to invalidate an entire argument by citing an unrelated anecdote.  Japan has 240% gross debt to GDP, and its 1.6% GDP growth is not good for a developed country (2.0% is healthy).


----------



## Wyatt earp

JQPublic1 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency.
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have solid evidence of what? That Russia leaked evidence to the press that Hillary was a corrupt lying bitch....and what was wrong with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with that is the Russians didn't leak evidence to the press that Trump is a corrupt lying bitch... a lot is wrong with that! But I guess they didn't have to.  Corrupt, narcissistic Trump can tell blatant lie after blatant lie and people like you don't care.
Click to expand...



Trumps lie didn't cost my health insurance to go up 100% never had any for like 20 years

Trumps lies is just about playing you guys at your own game and it drives you liberals all insane.  Which I approve of....


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Importing cheap labor from the third world leads to a third world standard of living for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't actually a real correlation. Almost every first world country today has experienced large waves of third world immigration in the past.
Click to expand...

It's not a correlation.  It's simply noting the conclusion of the laws of economics.  A bigger supply of unskilled labor means lower wages.No legitimate economist would argue with that.


----------



## JQPublic1

bear513 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency.
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have solid evidence of what? That Russia leaked evidence to the press that Hillary was a corrupt lying bitch....and what was wrong with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with that is the Russians didn't leak evidence to the press that Trump is a corrupt lying bitch... a lot is wrong with that! But I guess they didn't have to.  Corrupt, narcissistic Trump can tell blatant lie after blatant lie and people like you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps lie didn't cost my health insurance to go up 100% never had any for like 20 years
> 
> Trumps lies is just about playing you guys at your own game and it drives you liberals all insane.  Which I approve of....
Click to expand...



Hunh???







Hunh? WhatCHA SAY????  You admit Trump lies???? Hunh????


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most economists gravitate towards free trade and full immigration.
Click to expand...

Economists don't have to compete with unskilled labor.


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?



Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.


----------



## Brain357

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
Click to expand...


Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?


----------



## Brain357

Since they are living here and spending here, what about the effects of the loss of this spending?


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency.
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have solid evidence of what? That Russia leaked evidence to the press that Hillary was a corrupt lying bitch....and what was wrong with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My problem with that is the Russians didn't leak evidence to the press that Trump is a corrupt lying bitch... a lot is wrong with that! But I guess they didn't have to.  Corrupt, narcissistic Trump can tell blatant lie after blatant lie and people like you don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps lie didn't cost my health insurance to go up 100% never had any for like 20 years
> 
> Trumps lies is just about playing you guys at your own game and it drives you liberals all insane.  Which I approve of....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hunh???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunh? WhatCHA SAY????  You admit Trump lies???? Hunh????
Click to expand...


The plans on the left have coverage for drugs, office visit, tests, and a low deductible of $1,500 to $2000.  The plans on the right don't cover drugs or office visits and have a deductible of $6,500 or more.


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
Click to expand...

Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.


----------



## Care4all

interesting read

Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?


----------



## Brain357

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
Click to expand...


Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the wall won't work, isn't that just adding to the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> And the walls of Jericho came tumbling down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the wall will be 30' tall...
> Werner 40 ft. Aluminum Extension Ladder with 250 lb. Load Capacity Type I Duty Rating-D1340-2 - The Home Depot
Click to expand...

The ladder meme has been exploded 1000 times.  How difficult is it for some border guards to kick out the latter from the bottom?


----------



## Marion Morrison

JQPublic1 said:


> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!



And who needs farms when all the food you need is right at the grocery store?!

Legal Visa farm workers don't get deported.


Illegal aliens do.

Your flawed thinking is fail.


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.


----------



## Brain357

Care4all said:


> interesting read
> 
> Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?




There are many ways to debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn’t much of a debate at all. Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy. “That is not controversial,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told me. Shierholz also said that “there is a consensus that, on average, the incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of immigration.”


----------



## Brain357

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
Click to expand...


Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?


----------



## Brain357

If you think wages are too low, then blame the attack on unions.  When they were strong, so were wages.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the wall won't work, isn't that just adding to the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> And the walls of Jericho came tumbling down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the wall will be 30' tall...
> Werner 40 ft. Aluminum Extension Ladder with 250 lb. Load Capacity Type I Duty Rating-D1340-2 - The Home Depot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ladder meme has been exploded 1000 times.  How difficult is it for some border guards to kick out the latter from the bottom?
Click to expand...

 What about the soon to be  Uber drone human cargo service. Get your stock options in now...its coming!


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
Click to expand...

They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the wall won't work, isn't that just adding to the cost?
> 
> 
> 
> And the walls of Jericho came tumbling down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the wall will be 30' tall...
> Werner 40 ft. Aluminum Extension Ladder with 250 lb. Load Capacity Type I Duty Rating-D1340-2 - The Home Depot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ladder meme has been exploded 1000 times.  How difficult is it for some border guards to kick out the latter from the bottom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about the soon to be  Uber drone human cargo service. Get your stock options in now...its coming!
Click to expand...

Yeah, like that's really going to happen.  If it ever does, we can worry about it then.


----------



## keepitreal

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Over the past 8 years, over a trillion dollars was spent every year...
on what, couldn't tell ya, now, all of a sudden, people are concerned

I don't care how much the fucking wall costs,
at least there's something to show for the money!


----------



## JQPublic1

Marion Morrison said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who needs farms when all the food you need is right at the grocery store?!
> 
> Legal Visa farm workers don't get deported.
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens do.
> 
> Your flawed thinking is fail.
Click to expand...

  You must be short because my statistic just went right over your head! If undocumented farm laborers are 67% of that workforce I don't think the legal 33% will be able to hack it!


----------



## Brain357

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
Click to expand...


No, people retire because they are done working.  I know several who are quite happy they retired.


----------



## Spare_change

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.

Grow up.


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting read
> 
> Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ways to debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn’t much of a debate at all. Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy. “That is not controversial,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told me. Shierholz also said that “there is a consensus that, on average, the incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of immigration.”
Click to expand...


Whether they benefit some abstraction called "the economy" isn't the issue.  Whether they benefit native born Americans is the issue, and they clearly don't.  If all the growth goes to the 1% or the immigrants, how does that benefit me?


----------



## bripat9643

Brain357 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, people retire because they are done working.  I know several who are quite happy they retired.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because your personal anecdotes are sufficient to prove your theories correct.


----------



## nat4900

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




Fucked up "rationale" by middle-finger-baby.......As if that "beautiful wall" is going to save us from all those darkies coming in in tunnels, airplanes,ships, overstaying visas, etc........

Are ALL right wingers THIS stupid?


----------



## Marion Morrison

nat4900 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucked up "rationale" by middle-finger-baby.......As if that "beautiful wall" is going to save us from all those darkies coming in in tunnels, airplanes,ships, overstaying visas, etc........
> 
> Are ALL right wingers THIS stupid?
Click to expand...


I'd wager the dumbest, most inbred West Virginia right winger is STILL smarter than you, somehow.


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



As always Bri you are missing something.
1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B. 

2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in. 
So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it? 

Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities. 
Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
Click to expand...


Twisted logic to make you feel better?

Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Its supposed to cost nothing. Remember back when Mexico was going to pay for it?


----------



## Spare_change

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Its supposed to cost nothing. Remember back when Mexico was going to pay for it?
Click to expand...


Quit whining ... it doesn't become you.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Any leftist that comes in here trying to dispute that building a wall and keeping illegals out is not a net win for Americans should try to illegally move to Mexico.


----------



## Marion Morrison

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Its supposed to cost nothing. Remember back when Mexico was going to pay for it?
Click to expand...


It was supposed to be built right after Reagan granted 3 million amnesty, but I bet you didn't know about that, did you? It was funded then and another time after that already.


Third time's a charm, baby!


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> A bigger supply of unskilled labor means lower wages.No legitimate economist would argue with that.



A competitive labor force boosts economic efficiency and growth. No legitimate economist would argue that. 

I'm sick of you whiny bitches complaining about how the economy is unfair to you. Stop acting like pathetic hypocrites, or admit that you want the government to protect you.


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> Economists don't have to compete with unskilled labor.



No, but they do study the economic impacts immigration has on economies. 

I noticed that you switched the goalposts between illegal immigrants and unskilled labor, you intellectually dishonest idiot.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger supply of unskilled labor means lower wages.No legitimate economist would argue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A competitive labor force boosts economic efficiency and growth. No legitimate economist would argue that.
> 
> I'm sick of you whiny bitches complaining about how the economy is unfair to you. Stop acting like pathetic hypocrites, or admit that you want the government to protect you.
Click to expand...


A government is absolutely supposed to protect its citizens from foreign invaders.

Your version of "A competitive labor force" boosts profits for bosses temporarily, but drives down the standard of living for everybody. Furthermore, eventually some people can't even afford to buy their products, so that company goes bust.


----------



## Onyx

Marion Morrison said:


> A government is absolutely supposed to protect its citizens from foreign invaders.



Because you are too much of a pussy to defend yourself? There are no arbitrary responsibilities assigned to government.


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucked up "rationale" by middle-finger-baby.......As if that "beautiful wall" is going to save us from all those darkies coming in in tunnels, airplanes,ships, overstaying visas, etc........
> 
> Are ALL right wingers THIS stupid?
Click to expand...

Walls work, dumbass.   The record of walls built around the world show they work.  Everyone who opposes the wall is an open-borders douche bag traitor who wants to flood this country will illegal aliens.  Quit pretending that isn't your motive.  No one is fooled.


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> A government is absolutely supposed to protect its citizens from foreign invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are too much of a pussy to defend yourself? There are no arbitrary responsibilities assigned to government.
Click to expand...

If a government can be said to have any legitimate function, then protecting us from foreign invaders is certainly one of them.  Playing the macho man only proves you're a moron.


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
Click to expand...


You're an imbecile.  What is "those costs are inside this country" supposed to mean?  Are you saying they don't harm the taxpayer?  Then you're a fucking fool.  The cost goes away when we deport illegals, and if we allow them to keep coming in, the costs continue to grow.

Only an profound moron or a commie scumbag who wants to destroy this country would claim that the cost of social programs isn't a burden on the taxpayer


----------



## bripat9643

nat4900 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucked up "rationale" by middle-finger-baby.......As if that "beautiful wall" is going to save us from all those darkies coming in in tunnels, airplanes,ships, overstaying visas, etc........
> 
> Are ALL right wingers THIS stupid?
Click to expand...


The wall will eliminate about 60% of them, and that makes it well worth the investment.


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> If a government can be said to have any legitimate function, then protecting us from foreign invaders is certainly one of them.  Playing the macho man only proves you're a moron.



You are a raging hypocrite. Now you actually do believe in government, as long as it protects an arbitrary set of borders from better workers than your lazy ass?

 Pointing out that you are a whiny bitch is a fact, not a debating tactic.  All you do is complain about how unfair it is that others are allowed to enter the marketplace and compete.


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> The wall will eliminate about 60% of them, and that makes it well worth the investment.



Can you substantiate that claim, or did you just pull it out of your ass?


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger supply of unskilled labor means lower wages.No legitimate economist would argue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A competitive labor force boosts economic efficiency and growth. No legitimate economist would argue that.
> 
> I'm sick of you whiny bitches complaining about how the economy is unfair to you. Stop acting like pathetic hypocrites, or admit that you want the government to protect you.
Click to expand...


We do want the government to protect us from a flood of unskilled peasants willing to work for nothing.  Why shouldn't we?  

Illegal aliens aren't "the economy."  Whenever douche bags don't want to be explicit about not giving a fuck about flesh-and-blood Americans, they start talking about an abstraction called "the economy."


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will eliminate about 60% of them, and that makes it well worth the investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you substantiate that claim, or did you just pull it out of your ass?
Click to expand...

The douche bags who support open borders keep claiming that 40% illegals are visa overstays.  That means the rest came over the border.


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> We do want the government to protect us from a flood of unskilled peasants willing to work for nothing.  Why shouldn't we?



Translation: I'm upset that foreigners can out compete me, and want a socialist government to protect my entitled fat ass from the harsh realities of free market capitalism.




> Illegal aliens aren't "the economy."  Whenever douche bags don't want to be explicit about not giving a fuck about flesh-and-blood Americans, they start talking about an abstraction called "the economy."



You're right. The only economy that matters is the global economy.  There is no abstract economy within an arbitrary set of borders, in a modern world of economic interdependence.

 People like you are afraid of getting bitch slapped by the rest of the world, but closed borders wont help your stagnant economy.


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> The douche bags who support open borders keep claiming that 40% illegals are visa overstays.  That means the rest came over the border.



Let me tear down your terrible logic with common sense. 

The wall would only cover half the border. It wouldn't stop immigrants from exploiting weaknesses or even creating them. Even if an immigrant couldn't cross the border conventionally, they wouldn't just sit there dumbfounded. The number that enter via plane, boat, and professional trafficking would increase.


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do want the government to protect us from a flood of unskilled peasants willing to work for nothing.  Why shouldn't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I'm upset that foreigners can out compete me, and want a socialist government to protect my entitled fat ass from the harsh realities of free market capitalism.
Click to expand...


Enforcing our borders isn't socialism, moron, and only a fool would want to work for the same wages as ignorant unskilled peasants from the third world.  Who's side are you on?




Onyx said:


> Illegal aliens aren't "the economy."  Whenever douche bags don't want to be explicit about not giving a fuck about flesh-and-blood Americans, they start talking about an abstraction called "the economy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. The only economy that matters is the global economy.  There is no abstract economy within an arbitrary set of borders, in a modern world of economic interdependence.
> 
> People like you are afraid of getting bitch slapped by the rest of the world, but closed borders wont help your stagnant economy.
Click to expand...


That's just plain idiotic.  Why anyone would want Americans to compete with the lowest dregs of humanity in some third world hell hole is beyond me.  Do you really hate your fellow Americans that much?


----------



## Onyx

bripat9643 said:


> Enforcing our borders isn't socialism, moron, and only a fool would want to work for the same wages as ignorant unskilled peasants from the third world.



How is having a government regulate the influx of competitive labor  not socialism? I had no idea you were a commie.

Anarchists do not believe in borders. You are just a statist poser.



> Who's side are you on?



Free market anarchy. The enemy of state socialists such as yourself.



> Why anyone would want Americans to compete with the lowest dregs of humanity in some third world hell hole is beyond me.  Do you really hate your fellow Americans that much?



Now you are just projecting in a pathetic attempt to save face. Fellow Americans? Who said I was American?


----------



## Onyx

State socialist poser said:
			
		

> Why anyone would want Americans to compete with the lowest dregs of humanity in some third world hell hole is beyond me.



Now we have identified the real issue. You have what would first appear to be an irrational hatred of foreigners, but is in reality a projection of your own insecurities.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Onyx said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> A government is absolutely supposed to protect its citizens from foreign invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are too much of a pussy to defend yourself? There are no arbitrary responsibilities assigned to government.
Click to expand...


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence"

Constitution for the United States of America

Not sure what country you're from, but I'm an American.

I don't think you fully grasp
the amount of bloodshed that would be if Americans had to defend themselves from foreign invaders because the government refused to.

It would start with the government, then go South.


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The douche bags who support open borders keep claiming that 40% illegals are visa overstays.  That means the rest came over the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tear down your terrible logic with common sense.
> 
> The wall would only cover half the border. It wouldn't stop immigrants from exploiting weaknesses or even creating them. Even if an immigrant couldn't cross the border conventionally, they wouldn't just sit there dumbfounded. The number that enter via plane, boat, and professional trafficking would increase.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you get this "half the border" figure.  1700 miles is the figure I've seen discussed.  The only areas that would be left out are where natural boundaries make the wall unnecessary.

Mexican peasants walk across the border because they don't have money to buy cars or pay for air fair.  If they can't get across the border on foot, then they are pretty much stuck.

Here's some common sense for you:  walls work.  Israel has demonstrated the fact beyond all possible doubt.

Anyone who whines about the cost is automatically not to be believed.  $21 billion over 4 years comes to $5.25 billion a year.  The US government spends more than that on office supplies.

Whenever a snowflake starts whining about the cost of some program, you know they are full of shit.  Cost is never an object when it comes to the grandiose programs they want the taxpayers to support.  The talk about $trillions of dollars as if that was nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

Onyx said:


> State socialist poser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why anyone would want Americans to compete with the lowest dregs of humanity in some third world hell hole is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have identified the real issue. You have what would first appear to be an irrational hatred of foreigners, but is in reality a projection of your own insecurities.
Click to expand...


You mean the way you and the other snowflakes hate the Russians?


----------



## Jantje_Smit

bripat9643 said:


> _....The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media..._



One slight problem with your "simple and time-tested" plan, the Chinese and Romans didn't build a wall to keep poor, illegal immigrants, willing to work for slave wages out (they had actual slaves for that) but to prevent their ruling 1% from being robbed by barbarians


----------



## NYcarbineer

The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn. 

That will never happen.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do want the government to protect us from a flood of unskilled peasants willing to work for nothing.  Why shouldn't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I'm upset that foreigners can out compete me, and want a socialist government to protect my entitled fat ass from the harsh realities of free market capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens aren't "the economy."  Whenever douche bags don't want to be explicit about not giving a fuck about flesh-and-blood Americans, they start talking about an abstraction called "the economy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. The only economy that matters is the global economy.  There is no abstract economy within an arbitrary set of borders, in a modern world of economic interdependence.
> 
> People like you are afraid of getting bitch slapped by the rest of the world, but closed borders wont help your stagnant economy.
Click to expand...



Got to love your ignorant spin liberal translation device..


Hey asshole we are talking illegal immigrants... Not legal ones..


Do you even know what the fucking difference is child?

Ask your pops who used to have a job in construction industry  making $25 an hour replaced by an illegal making $3.00 an hour below minimum wage 



.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do want the government to protect us from a flood of unskilled peasants willing to work for nothing.  Why shouldn't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I'm upset that foreigners can out compete me, and want a socialist government to protect my entitled fat ass from the harsh realities of free market capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens aren't "the economy."  Whenever douche bags don't want to be explicit about not giving a fuck about flesh-and-blood Americans, they start talking about an abstraction called "the economy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. The only economy that matters is the global economy.  There is no abstract economy within an arbitrary set of borders, in a modern world of economic interdependence.
> 
> People like you are afraid of getting bitch slapped by the rest of the world, but closed borders wont help your stagnant economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got to love your ignorant spin liberal translation device..
> 
> 
> Hey asshole we are talking illegal immigrants... Not legal ones..
> 
> 
> Do you even know what the fucking difference is child?
> 
> Ask your pops who used to have a job in construction industry  making $25 an hour replaced by an illegal making $3.00 an hour below minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So when legal immigrant doctors take American jobs that's somehow better?


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.



The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.


----------



## bripat9643

Jantje_Smit said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _....The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media..._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One slight problem with your "simple and time-tested" plan, the Chinese and Romans didn't build a wall to keep poor, illegal immigrants, willing to work for slave wages out (they had actual slaves for that) but to prevent their ruling 1% from being robbed by barbarians
Click to expand...

Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?


----------



## Norman

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



Obama spent almost 800 billion on infrastructure in one year. Every lefty was of the opinion that deficits don't matter and Obama should spend even more to stimulate demand. Paul Krugman even suggested that we should fake an alien invasion so Obama could spend more on digging and then filling ditches.

Now that Trump is proposing a measly 20 billion infrastructure project - the lefties are FURIOUS. Outrageous spending!!!


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



More fake news.

I know many Mexicans & every one of them works their ass off. I haven't found one yet that was on the government dole. Lazy Mexicans don't run across a huge brutal desert to get hard labor jobs.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fake news.
> 
> I know many Mexicans & every one of them works their ass off. I haven't found one yet that was on the government dole.
Click to expand...

I've stood behind Mexican women in the grocery store who were using food stamps, and they didn't speak a word of English.  One was buying diapers for her anchor baby.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fake news.
> 
> I know many Mexicans & every one of them works their ass off. I haven't found one yet that was on the government dole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stood behind Mexican women in the grocery store who were using food stamps, and they didn't speak a word of English.  One was buying diapers for her anchor baby.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you. Next time take video & ask her if she crossed the desert to get food stamps.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

bripat9643 said:


> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?



You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fake news.
> 
> I know many Mexicans & every one of them works their ass off. I haven't found one yet that was on the government dole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've stood behind Mexican women in the grocery store who were using food stamps, and they didn't speak a word of English.  One was buying diapers for her anchor baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you. Next time take video & ask her if she crossed the desert to get food stamps.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right.  

What a fucking jackass.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigrants in America pay more in taxes than they receive in state benefits. The net economic benefit that they provide through working is also positive.
> 
> You should stop sourcing information from openly biased op-ed media. In other words, stop using fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare and unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
Click to expand...

Baghdad Bripat, just who lost jobs to illegals?  Give us names, places, and locations, please.


----------



## bripat9643

Jantje_Smit said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
Click to expand...


Yeah, a lot of people want to hire them . . . . .  for 1/4 the wage they would have to pay an American .

You are the one who doesn't get it.

Why do you snowflakes always assume no one will be guarding the wall?  Do you believe the government is really that stupid?


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.



Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. _*Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.*_ The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer. An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, a lot of people want to hire them . . . . . for 1/4 the wage they would have to pay an American .
> 
> You are the one who doesn't get it.
> 
> Why do you snowflakes always assume no one will be guarding the wall? Do you believe the government is really that stupid?



Naw, just people who think a wall is a good idea.  

Here's the thing. Most illegal aliens didn't sneak under a fence. They came here on valid tourist, students or work visas that expired and they just hung around.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

bripat9643 said:


> Yeah, a lot of people want to hire them . . . . .  for 1/4 the wage they would have to pay an American .
> 
> You are the one who doesn't get it.
> 
> Why do you snowflakes always assume no one will be guarding the wall?  Do you believe the government is really that stupid?



It's simply impossible to effectively guard a wall thousands of miles long, the Chinese and Romans couldn't manage it either

And yes, government would be indeed that stupid if they really believed they could do it. But they don't really believe that, the wall is just for proganda purposes, to give voting peasants like you the impression that murica is indeed becoming great again


----------



## KissMy

Jantje_Smit said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, a lot of people want to hire them . . . . .  for 1/4 the wage they would have to pay an American .
> 
> You are the one who doesn't get it.
> 
> Why do you snowflakes always assume no one will be guarding the wall?  Do you believe the government is really that stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply impossible to effectively guard a wall thousands of miles long, the Chinese and Romans couldn't manage it either
> 
> And yes, government would be indeed that stupid if they really believed they could do it. But they don't really believe that, the wall is just for proganda purposes, to give voting peasants like you the impression that murica is indeed becoming great again
Click to expand...


The border security scam is a huge money grab. We are paying over 21,000 border agents to guard a 1,950 mile border. That's 11 agent's per mile or one every 480'ft. Now they want another $47 Billion. This is a huge tax on US & all this money goes to a few states, but mostly to Texas. I say let the states pay for this crap. If we build a fence, then fire half the border agents. This is a *Huge Boondoggle!*


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make money off of illegals.  Perhaps the leftwing 1% douche bags like George Soros and Hillary do, but I the average worker doesn't.  He gets fucked up the ass.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking nuts?

Cheap labor with no benefits
That is why the Mexicans are here

Want to stop immigration with no wall?

Throw a couple of those employers in jail and watch the jobs dry up


----------



## IcebergSlim

Marion Morrison said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> They are "facts" because some random douche on the innertubes asserts so, or because said random douche is endorsed by Bripat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have facts to counter bripat9643's info correct?
> 
> Oh! No?
> 
> Well dang! Your leftist opinion is duly noted and resoundingly dismissed.
> 
> Poof! Be gone, fairy.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you didn't get where you are today by thinkin'......

There are numerous estimates put together by sources for more authoritative than some douche in law school trying to make his reactionary bones...

The fact that this guy makes these claims, posts them on a blog where he identifies himself as all manner of dignitary (he is, in fact, nothing more than a budding deed stamper at some third rate regional law school - which he declines to identify) doesn't compel me to believe......though it clearly has made a profound impression on you and The Wisconsin Talking Pork Roast...


----------



## IcebergSlim

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where he countered the costs with the benefits of the cheap labor?  Do we all want to pay more for food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most illegal aliens are working in trades like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
Click to expand...

Bri,

Why do you constantly rely on shit you make up?

Post the data for Part Time for Economic Reasons....

go on....let's see the actual numbers which support your uninformed squawk...

You CAN do that, right?


----------



## IcebergSlim

bripat9643 said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigrants in America pay more in taxes than they receive in state benefits. The net economic benefit that they provide through working is also positive.
> 
> You should stop sourcing information from openly biased op-ed media. In other words, stop using fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare and unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
Click to expand...

There are currently around 5 million job openings.....

If you're not working, Bri, it ain't because some illegal has taken your opportunity.......it's because you are an imbecile...


----------



## IcebergSlim

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we want to pay more for houses and shipping?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
Click to expand...

No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do want the government to protect us from a flood of unskilled peasants willing to work for nothing.  Why shouldn't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I'm upset that foreigners can out compete me, and want a socialist government to protect my entitled fat ass from the harsh realities of free market capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal aliens aren't "the economy."  Whenever douche bags don't want to be explicit about not giving a fuck about flesh-and-blood Americans, they start talking about an abstraction called "the economy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. The only economy that matters is the global economy.  There is no abstract economy within an arbitrary set of borders, in a modern world of economic interdependence.
> 
> People like you are afraid of getting bitch slapped by the rest of the world, but closed borders wont help your stagnant economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got to love your ignorant spin liberal translation device..
> 
> 
> Hey asshole we are talking illegal immigrants... Not legal ones..
> 
> 
> Do you even know what the fucking difference is child?
> 
> Ask your pops who used to have a job in construction industry  making $25 an hour replaced by an illegal making $3.00 an hour below minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when legal immigrant doctors take American jobs that's somehow better?
Click to expand...



Again why would anyone have a problem with legal immigrants ? And since when do we import doctors to undercut salary? If anything they would be welcome because so many doctors nowadays refuse obamacare/medicaid patients


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fake news.
> 
> I know many Mexicans & every one of them works their ass off. I haven't found one yet that was on the government dole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've stood behind Mexican women in the grocery store who were using food stamps, and they didn't speak a word of English.  One was buying diapers for her anchor baby.
Click to expand...


Illogical


----------



## BrokeLoser

Onyx said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
Click to expand...




JQPublic1 said:


> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!



Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Just special pleading from the right wing.



> Not only do illegal aliens cost the government far more far more than they pay in tax, but they increase competition for work, which drives wages down and causes unemployment for citizens who can’t work for $2 an hour (due to obvious legal impediments).



A market friendly visa, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for native labor, simply for being unemployed; will solve our illegal problem in a market friendly manner via Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis as that form of command economics.


----------



## JQPublic1

BrokeLoser said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
Click to expand...

I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.


----------



## JQPublic1

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
Click to expand...

 If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.


----------



## BrokeLoser

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
Click to expand...




JQPublic1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?


----------



## BrokeLoser

JQPublic1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

*"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?


----------



## JQPublic1

BrokeLoser said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
Click to expand...



Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.


----------



## JQPublic1

BrokeLoser said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
Click to expand...

 No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.


----------



## g5000

I can't wait to  see your faces when the GOP and Trump gives amnesty to the 11 million illegals.

That should make you happy since it is the will of the people, but the will of the people only matters to you tards when it is convenient.


----------



## BrokeLoser

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
Click to expand...


Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country?
How many piece of shit junker autos do you think they buy, how many bottles of Tapatio or cans of Bud Light? Payroll taxes? They pay a zero percent effective tax rate and don't tell me that many use a bogus tax id to pay taxes yet never collect the return...that's absolute bullshit and just another fabricated Liberal myth...those types claim 99 dependents and essentially exempt themselves from withholding.


----------



## Brain357

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
Click to expand...


If nobody would hire them they would not come....


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
Click to expand...


You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.  

1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so. 
2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really? 
3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP? 

About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall. 
How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net? 

UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily


----------



## BrokeLoser

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
Click to expand...


"How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"

Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America


----------



## rightwinger

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
Click to expand...

Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals

Jobs will disappear immediately

No need for a wall


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
Click to expand...


They have all been complaining about job loss, moron.  Why do you imagine they voted for Trump?  I know, I know, it's purely because they are racist xenophobic bigots.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
Click to expand...

It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> I can't wait to  see your faces when the GOP and Trump gives amnesty to the 11 million illegals.
> 
> That should make you happy since it is the will of the people, but the will of the people only matters to you tards when it is convenient.


That's just not going to happen.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
Click to expand...


So what's your solution, turn the USA into a third world country like Mexico?

You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Brain357

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
Click to expand...

 
It is easy to buy a 40' ladder and climb over 30' wall...


----------



## BrokeLoser

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
Click to expand...




JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
Click to expand...




Brain357 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
Click to expand...


Hey fellas... just so I know the type of character I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentivize the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.


----------



## Preacher

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here


Republican CEO's want cheap labor and Democrat politicians need illegals for more votes. They work together to FUCK the American worker.


----------



## bripat9643

BrokeLoser said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Odium said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> Republican CEO's want cheap labor and Democrat politicians need illegals for more votes. They work together to FUCK the American worker.
Click to expand...


I thought big corp CEO's generally lean Democrat...no?
With the exception of hotel chains...in the corporate world who else can make use of low iQ workers with poor communication skills?


----------



## Preacher

BrokeLoser said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> Republican CEO's want cheap labor and Democrat politicians need illegals for more votes. They work together to FUCK the American worker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought big corp CEO's generally lean Democrat...no?
> With the exception of hotel chains...in the corporate world who else can make use of low iQ workers with poor communication skills?
Click to expand...

Factories of all sorts can. Long as you got a supervisor who can understand and communicate in Spanish with them.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
Click to expand...

Tear down the wall

Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction


----------



## Preacher

rightwinger said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
Click to expand...

They still get free welfare! So no that won't work.


----------



## JoeB131

BrokeLoser said:


> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.



Funny, most undocumented immigrants I know are the hardest working folks I've ever met. 

As opposed to White Trash in JesusLand waiting for their assistance check.


----------



## Brain357

bripat9643 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
Click to expand...


Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have all been complaining about job loss, moron.  Why do you imagine they voted for Trump?  I know, I know, it's purely because they are racist xenophobic bigots.
Click to expand...

Well, you are partially right but personally I think most are just kool aid drinkers.Heh heh heh!


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have all been complaining about job loss, moron.  Why do you imagine they voted for Trump?  I know, I know, it's purely because they are racist xenophobic bigots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you are partially right but personally I think most are just kool aid drinkers.Heh heh heh!
Click to expand...


Thanks for confirming that you're a total douche bag.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
Click to expand...

How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
Click to expand...


You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.

For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?

Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Brain357 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
Click to expand...




JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
Click to expand...


"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.


----------



## Spare_change

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fake news.
> 
> I know many Mexicans & every one of them works their ass off. I haven't found one yet that was on the government dole. Lazy Mexicans don't run across a huge brutal desert to get hard labor jobs.
Click to expand...


Anecdotal data, at best ... I would guess that 80% of the "Mexicans" I know are on the government dole. (I love the way you categorize them all in one group ----- a tad racist, don't you think?)

My "fact" is just as good as your "fact".


----------



## Spare_change

Jantje_Smit said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
Click to expand...

Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.

It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those. 

The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods. 

I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?

But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)

Except that isn't true .... 

*THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*

*When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*

*77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
*65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
*74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
*75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
*It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.

Jobs Americans Won't Do?
*
So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?

The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families. 

In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the guy who has been unemployed for 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....
Click to expand...

Surely, you jest ...

I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Just special pleading from the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do illegal aliens cost the government far more far more than they pay in tax, but they increase competition for work, which drives wages down and causes unemployment for citizens who can’t work for $2 an hour (due to obvious legal impediments).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A market friendly visa, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for native labor, simply for being unemployed; will solve our illegal problem in a market friendly manner via Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis as that form of command economics.
Click to expand...


Frankly, the stupidity of that statement is only exceeded by the ignorance that led you to think that was some kind of viable input.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
Click to expand...

Well, I can see logic isn't your strong suit ....


----------



## Spare_change

BrokeLoser said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> Republican CEO's want cheap labor and Democrat politicians need illegals for more votes. They work together to FUCK the American worker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought big corp CEO's generally lean Democrat...no?
> With the exception of hotel chains...in the corporate world who else can make use of low iQ workers with poor communication skills?
Click to expand...

You can be confident that the vast majority of "big corp CEO's" are conservative, and vote Republican.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
Click to expand...


Psst ... the jobs aren't going to disappear ... the companies will still make products, the farmers will still grow strawberries ... 

As for the 10 million, they aren't going anywhere because the US safety net provides them a better quality of life than their home country. They will simply live on your tax dollars.


----------



## Spare_change

Brain357 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
Click to expand...


Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??

You might want to shine a little reality on it.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.



There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.


----------



## Brain357

Spare_change said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??
> 
> You might want to shine a little reality on it.
Click to expand...


The reality is they come here because the rich hire them.  No jobs, no immigrants.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



?

You don't seem to understand your own false label.


----------



## BrokeLoser

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
Click to expand...


Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?


----------



## Brain357

BrokeLoser said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
Click to expand...


The employers are the ones stealing.  They are hiring immigrants rather than Americans.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??
> 
> You might want to shine a little reality on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is they come here because the rich hire them.  No jobs, no immigrants.
Click to expand...


Reposted for the third time...people with their head in their ass continue to pretend they didn't read it. (See below)
"Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon."


----------



## JoeB131

BrokeLoser said:


> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?



Naw, guy, most of you rednecks couldn't compete at my level of proficiency.. that's the thing.  You see, if you are the kind of inbred redneck in Jesusland who lives in terror a Mexican will steal his job, then that's on you for not gaining the skill sets to make your lazy inbred ass useful to an employer.


----------



## BrokeLoser

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
Click to expand...




Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??
> 
> You might want to shine a little reality on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is they come here because the rich hire them.  No jobs, no immigrants.
Click to expand...


Another post that's been conveniently ignored so whackos can continue to frame and spin their fabricated bullshit. (See below)
"Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country?
How many piece of shit junker autos do you think they buy, how many bottles of Tapatio or cans of Bud Light? Payroll taxes? They pay a zero percent effective tax rate and don't tell me that many use a bogus tax id to pay taxes yet never collect the return...that's absolute bullshit and just another fabricated Liberal myth...those types claim 99 dependents and essentially exempt themselves from withholding."


----------



## BrokeLoser

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, guy, most of you rednecks couldn't compete at my level of proficiency.. that's the thing.  You see, if you are the kind of inbred redneck in Jesusland who lives in terror a Mexican will steal his job, then that's on you for not gaining the skill sets to make your lazy inbred ass useful to an employer.
Click to expand...


Haha...you're quite the funny guy. Don't be ashamed of your heritage bud...admit it and own your filth....it's okay. 
I'm not the least bit worried about a beaner stealing my job as it requires cash, an iQ and communication skills...resources and skill sets beaners don't possess. You and I both know the only jobs they steal are jobs suited for the ignorant, the young, and or the desperate. Further, no one here "lives in terror"...you see, 5' tall smelly beaners don't intimidate anyone.


----------



## Siete

BrokeLoser said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
Click to expand...



hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.

sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?


----------



## bullwinkle

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​





bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Do I detect a change of tune here?  Seems like just yesterday 1/3 of American was chanting that Mexico would pay for the wall.  Now I read articles about how much cheaper the wall is at $20+billion of our taxes vs the cost of illegal immigration.  Before you know it the circle will be complete and we will be paying Mexico for the wall.   What a Deal!


----------



## BrokeLoser

bullwinkle said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I detect a change of tune here?  Seems like just yesterday 1/3 of American was chanting that Mexico would pay for the wall.  Now I read articles about how much cheaper the wall is at $20+billion of our taxes vs the cost of illegal immigration.  Before you know it the circle will be complete and we will be paying Mexico for the wall.   What a Deal!
Click to expand...


Most of us are smart enough to do the simple arithmetic...as soon as you're able to do that you too will see that it doesn't really matter who pays for the wall...it's all just semantics.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Siete said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
Click to expand...

I wish I had the patience to keep talking in circles with you anchor babies...I'll just copy and paste what I've previously posted. (See below)

"*Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? Illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.*
*P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?"*


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment is very low.  Where do we find this guy?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely, you jest ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
Click to expand...


I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....

What have you got?


----------



## danielpalos

JQPublic1 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
Click to expand...

the rich can afford to protect their natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
Click to expand...

Why not solve our federal problem at the federal borders with the federal powers already delegated to our federal Congress.  A market friendly visa with work authorization availability, could generate revenue and ensure there is no, easy or convenient black market for foreign labor in our Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
Click to expand...

Our exorbitantly expensive drug war in Latin America does not help the situation, either.


----------



## danielpalos

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
Click to expand...

Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?


----------



## Siete

BrokeLoser said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish I had the patience to keep talking in circles with you anchor babies...I'll just copy and paste what I've previously posted. (See below)
> 
> "*Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? Illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?"*
Click to expand...



I dont give two shits about you or your c/p bullshit.

FACT ..

43 had the House and Senate at his disposal, and like ALL Republicans didnt do shit other than waste 2 billion building a pissy partial fence when he had an opportunity,


and now  they (dipshits like you) want 20-50 billion because Cteeto Don asks for it while he's blowing smoke up your ass and sucking Russians.

if the same frugal conservative group landed in the middle of his ass over healthcare, lands in the middle of his ass over the wall, you can kiss it adios.

deporting 20 million illegals has already gone without so much as a peep.


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
Click to expand...

Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.


----------



## danielpalos

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
Click to expand...

they should be renewable annually.  why are we not making money on this?


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
Click to expand...

A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
Click to expand...

A market friendly visa is easier, and we could be making money on it.


----------



## danielpalos

Brain357 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is easy to buy a 40' ladder and climb over 30' wall...
Click to expand...

they have Home Depot in Mexico now.  just wait until they can afford, 511tactical gear.


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Just special pleading from the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only do illegal aliens cost the government far more far more than they pay in tax, but they increase competition for work, which drives wages down and causes unemployment for citizens who can’t work for $2 an hour (due to obvious legal impediments).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A market friendly visa, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, and unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour for native labor, simply for being unemployed; will solve our illegal problem in a market friendly manner via Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis as that form of command economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly, the stupidity of that statement is only exceeded by the ignorance that led you to think that was some kind of viable input.
Click to expand...

having nothing but fallacy instead of any form of valid argument for rebuttal; is pretty funny.

Why do you believe a market friendly visa won't work to solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis via capitalism and not socialism on a national basis?


----------



## danielpalos

Siete said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
Click to expand...

there is no unemployment, only underpayment.


----------



## BrokeLoser

danielpalos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.
Click to expand...


What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.



danielpalos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.
Click to expand...


Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working? 
Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?


----------



## meaner gene

Siete said:


> 43 had the House and Senate at his disposal, and like ALL Republicans didnt do shit other than waste 2 billion building a pissy partial fence when he had an opportunity,
> 
> 
> and now  they (dipshits like you) want 20-50 billion because Cteeto Don asks for it while he's blowing smoke up your ass and sucking Russians.
> 
> if the same frugal conservative group landed in the middle of his ass over healthcare, lands in the middle of his ass over the wall, you can kiss it adios.
> 
> deporting 20 million illegals has already gone without so much as a peep.



To quote Paul Ryan, ""*We were an opposition party for 10 years* and all we had to do was oppose things. It's easy. Now we have to Govern, and to do that we have to get everyone to agree."

"This issue had a big difference of opinion not whether we should repeal and replace Obamacare, but just how we should replace it. And that is the growing pains of governing.*We were a 10-year opposition party,* where being against things was easy to do. You just had to be against it. And now in three months' time we tried to go to a governing party where we actually had to get 216 people to agree with each other on how we do things and we weren't just quite there today."


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If  we go to the source of illegal immigration and root it out by criminalizing the hiring of  illegals we can save that 30 billion dollars Trump wants to spend on his damn wall. BTW, why didn't HE  think of  prosecuting  employers of illegals instead of building a damn wall. Answer that question and become enlightened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?
Click to expand...

You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
Click to expand...



No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.


----------



## meaner gene

As if frequently said,  the truth Hertz.


----------



## meaner gene

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
Click to expand...


Trump staffed Mar-a-lago with H1b holders, because he said he couldn't find qualified americans to clean rooms.


----------



## BrokeLoser

danielpalos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.
Click to expand...


Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?


----------



## Marion Morrison

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


When every leftist shill on the board is dogpiling on you, you must be on the right track! 

They'll lie, cheat, steal, do whatever they can just as long as "no wall". 

The wall is getting built, people.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
Click to expand...

Capitalism requires competition, for the market based metrics; otherwise, it is just plain socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump staffed Mar-a-lago with H1b holders, because he said he couldn't find qualified americans to clean rooms.
Click to expand...

Texas tried to exempt the rich from illegal hiring laws, meant for the 99 percent; some time ago.


----------



## bripat9643

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump staffed Mar-a-lago with H1b holders, because he said he couldn't find qualified americans to clean rooms.
Click to expand...

They had H2B visas, which are a different thing.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism requires competition, for the market based metrics; otherwise, it is just plain socialism.
Click to expand...

We don't need to import additional competition for our jobs, period.


----------



## bripat9643

Marion Morrison said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When every leftist shill on the board is dogpiling on you, you must be on the right track!
> 
> They'll lie, cheat, steal, do whatever they can just as long as "no wall".
> 
> The wall is getting built, people.
Click to expand...

I always get the same reaction whenever I post about building the wall.  They absolutely despise it, which means it's the right thing to do.


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they understand the economic impact I spoke about above. Workers, illegal or not ,buy stuff and contribute to payroll taxes and sales taxes. If local citizens are not complaining about job loss to illegals there  should be no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
> What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?
Click to expand...

simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.  

We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.

It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.  

Why be for more, regulation?


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism requires competition, for the market based metrics; otherwise, it is just plain socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need to import additional competition for our jobs, period.
Click to expand...

we don't need a socialized work ethic, either; simply so the rich can get richer faster.

equal protection of the law regarding employment at will for unemployment compensation purposes, solves simple poverty, can lower our tax burden and will increase the efficiency of our economy.

Only the right wing, has a problem with it.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> 
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When every leftist shill on the board is dogpiling on you, you must be on the right track!
> 
> They'll lie, cheat, steal, do whatever they can just as long as "no wall".
> 
> The wall is getting built, people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get the same reaction whenever I post about building the wall.  They absolutely despise it, which means it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Just a waste of money.  They have, Home Depot, in Mexico now.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When every leftist shill on the board is dogpiling on you, you must be on the right track!
> 
> They'll lie, cheat, steal, do whatever they can just as long as "no wall".
> 
> The wall is getting built, people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get the same reaction whenever I post about building the wall.  They absolutely despise it, which means it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a waste of money.  They have, Home Depot, in Mexico now.
Click to expand...


Ah, but here's the caveat: There's no American contractors in the parking lot picking them up for the day.


----------



## BrokeLoser

danielpalos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
> What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.
> 
> We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.
> 
> It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Why be for more, regulation?
Click to expand...


Come on Danny....stop the babble and properly engage in the discussion...I don't like watching you being ignored.
Why put foreigners to work here when we can make use of our own desperate bottom feeders?

"*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism requires competition, for the market based metrics; otherwise, it is just plain socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need to import additional competition for our jobs, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't need a socialized work ethic, either; simply so the rich can get richer faster.
> 
> equal protection of the law regarding employment at will for unemployment compensation purposes, solves simple poverty, can lower our tax burden and will increase the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Only the right wing, has a problem with it.
Click to expand...

So you think unemployment insurance is the solution to illegals taking our jobs?

You're a moron.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When every leftist shill on the board is dogpiling on you, you must be on the right track!
> 
> They'll lie, cheat, steal, do whatever they can just as long as "no wall".
> 
> The wall is getting built, people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always get the same reaction whenever I post about building the wall.  They absolutely despise it, which means it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a waste of money.  They have, Home Depot, in Mexico now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, but here's the caveat: There's no American contractors in the parking lot picking them up for the day.
Click to expand...

they sell ladders at Home Depot.  Should we insist, they at least, "buy American"?


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric is all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A market friendly visa that is renewable annually; or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
> What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.
> 
> We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.
> 
> It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Why be for more, regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Danny....stop the babble and properly engage in the discussion...I don't like watching you being ignored.
> Why put foreigners to work here when we can make use of our own desperate bottom feeders?
> 
> "*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*
Click to expand...

only the right wing never gets it.

why "throw capitalism under the buss" merely for the inferiority of your national socialist point of view?


----------



## BrokeLoser

danielpalos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's was said that's untrue? Dig deep Danny.
> 
> Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
> What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.
> 
> We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.
> 
> It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Why be for more, regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Danny....stop the babble and properly engage in the discussion...I don't like watching you being ignored.
> Why put foreigners to work here when we can make use of our own desperate bottom feeders?
> 
> "*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> why "throw capitalism under the buss" merely for the inferiority of your national socialist point of view?
Click to expand...


You're ducking and dodging and making no sense in your babble.
Answer my questions. Don't be scared.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism requires competition, for the market based metrics; otherwise, it is just plain socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need to import additional competition for our jobs, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't need a socialized work ethic, either; simply so the rich can get richer faster.
> 
> equal protection of the law regarding employment at will for unemployment compensation purposes, solves simple poverty, can lower our tax burden and will increase the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Only the right wing, has a problem with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think unemployment insurance is the solution to illegals taking our jobs?
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...

lol.  Only the right wing always complains.  they doth protest too much, methinks.

It is about First World forms of work ethic versus third world forms of truer, capital work ethic, unchanged from the Age of Iron.  

Why complain if you could have recourse to unemployment that either clears our poverty guidelines or is one dollar an hour less than the current statutory minimum wage?

Learning how to "enjoy life while learning how to merely use Capitalism for _all_ of its worth" is what First World morals regarding a work ethic, should be about.


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but fallacy; how _inferior_ is that.  It is the Only reason i cannot go along with your white nationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
> What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.
> 
> We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.
> 
> It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Why be for more, regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Danny....stop the babble and properly engage in the discussion...I don't like watching you being ignored.
> Why put foreigners to work here when we can make use of our own desperate bottom feeders?
> 
> "*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> why "throw capitalism under the buss" merely for the inferiority of your national socialist point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ducking and dodging and making no sense in your babble.
> Answer my questions. Don't be scared.
Click to expand...

you have nothing but fallacy.  with Capitalism, we could be generating revenue to help potentially, lower our tax burden.

all you have is more socialism on a national basis, my goode comrade.


----------



## edward37

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


WOOF WOOF
13 hrs · 





Fluf


----------



## Spare_change

Brain357 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??
> 
> You might want to shine a little reality on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is they come here because the rich hire them.  No jobs, no immigrants.
Click to expand...

So incredibly naive ... and ever so wrong. But, yet, you continue to parrot the leftist propaganda.


----------



## Spare_change

Brain357 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The employers are the ones stealing.  They are hiring immigrants rather than Americans.
Click to expand...

Ok ... one more time I'm going to show you just how incredibly false this is.

Profit - which you maintain is the reason illegals are hired - is a percentage of cost. Any good businessman sets his anticipated profit margin based on the cost of production and labor. It doesn't make any difference whether the cost is $5 or $500, his profit expectations are the same (a nominal 10% of the cost) There is an economic case to be made that the higher the labor cost, the more dollars in the pocket of the producer (10% of $500 means more money in the employer's pocket than 10% of $5)

The only reason to use cheaper labor is because YOU want cheaper goods. YOU are more likely to buy the product if it is cheaper. Cheaper prices means the product is more competitive, and more likely to be bought by YOU.

So, YOU bitch and moan about the employer giving you exactly what you want. It's always convenient to blame somebody else when, in fact, YOU are the problem.


----------



## Spare_change

Siete said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
Click to expand...

Except that isn't true .... 

*THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*

*When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*

*77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
*65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
*74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
*75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
*It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.

Jobs Americans Won't Do?*

So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's low, if you don't count all the people who quit looking or all the people holding down two or three part time jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely, you jest ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
> 
> What have you got?
Click to expand...

You prove yourself incapable once again ....

First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement. 

You need to rethink your logic ...


----------



## rightwinger

BrokeLoser said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
> Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Who is the bigger criminal?
The business owner who makes profit off of low wage illegal workers or some Mexican trying to feed his family?

Who is more likely to be arrested?


----------



## charwin95

BrokeLoser said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
Click to expand...


Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?


----------



## BrokeLoser

rightwinger said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
> Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is the bigger criminal?
> The business owner who makes profit off of low wage illegal workers or some Mexican trying to feed his family?
> 
> Who is more likely to be arrested?
Click to expand...


Semantics.
They're equally criminal as both are committing crimes. Problem is, your nutless Democratic leaders of these shithole cities pretend neither are criminals and refuse to do anything about it. In fact most develop one program after the next to make both sides more "comfortable" and at ease while breaking the law. Your party would sell their ass for a vote...you know this.


----------



## Derelict_Drvr

BrokeLoser said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
Click to expand...



You're correct.  As a youngster I washed dishes, ran a ski lift, bused tables, cleaned up on construction sites, pumped gas, clean up had landscape maintenance, etc.  All jobs now held by illegals.  Even my kids had more job opportunities, though more limited than mine, than kids today.

Illegals have taken all of the low skilled, entry level jobs that young people filled in the past, causing the unemployment to escalate, exacerbating the situation.

Where I live illegals have taken ALL of the laborer, pipe layers, brick layers, concrete finishers, burger flippers, some truck driver/heavy equipment operator, roofer, many carpenter, fencing, landscaping, logging, drilling rig, etc, jobs.  As a result there are hundreds of people out of work in our small city.  They have depressed all of those wages to the point that (if a job even comes open) a family man isn't able to support his family.  They've taken skilled jobs from $20..00-$25.00/hr to of $10.00-$12.00/hr.  They get food stamps; welfare; and government supported free medical and dental care from the Merilac Clinic; unemployment in the winter; government assisted low-income housing, so the unemployed  can't find an affordable place to live.

With the illegals driving down wages and the huge influx of California retirees moving in,  wages have dropped and the cost of living (Housing and food, etc) has risen to the point the the average person can't afford to live here and can't afford to move.

Trying to find a job here is harder than during the energy bust in the 1980's.

This is the thing that liberals turn a blind eye to and claim it doesn't exist.  Liberals live in their ivory towers, often in their minds, and view the world though rose colored glasses.  They totally ignored the realities of this, and other things.  They choose to live in their utopian worlds, which are quickly turning in dystopian, in ignorant bliss.

And they can't figure out why the average working man has chosen conservatism.

Clueless...


----------



## danielpalos

Derelict_Drvr said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct.  As a youngster I washed dishes, ran a ski lift, bused tables, cleaned up on construction sites, pumped gas, clean up had landscape maintenance, etc.  All jobs now held by illegals.  Even my kids had more job opportunities, though more limited than mine, than kids today.
Click to expand...


Even with "home schooling" and YouTube available?  How do your kids have less opportunities, in modern information age times?


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
Click to expand...


No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.


----------



## BrokeLoser

charwin95 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
Click to expand...



Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we count all those baby boomers who got old and retired?  Isn't that what you are supposed to do?
> 
> 
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely, you jest ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
> 
> What have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prove yourself incapable once again ....
> 
> First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
> 
> You need to rethink your logic ...
Click to expand...

No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.

Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....

Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....

Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?







The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.

Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.

The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
> Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is the bigger criminal?
> The business owner who makes profit off of low wage illegal workers or some Mexican trying to feed his family?
> 
> Who is more likely to be arrested?
Click to expand...


What difference does it make?  We know that the immigration laws are never going to be enforced by Democrats running these sanctuary cities.   They are the biggest criminals.  The surest way to make sure illegals don't enter the country is to keep them out in the first place.

No one gives a fuck about your hatred of employers.


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
Click to expand...


$20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.

The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I can see logic isn't your strong suit ....
Click to expand...


You rebuttal stinks ..........
What I did old you are facts and reality. No bs. I asked you a very simple questions but you deflected.


----------



## BrokeLoser

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I can see logic isn't your strong suit ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rebuttal stinks ..........
> What I did old you are facts and reality. No bs. I asked you a very simple questions but you deflected.
Click to expand...


Oh shit...more of the same illiteracy. What's your address bud? I really need to get this Rosetta Stone off to you. Let me save you from the embarrassment. Maybe then you can sell your lie and convince others that you are a legal American citizen.


----------



## Spare_change

rightwinger said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
> Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is the bigger criminal?
> The business owner who makes profit off of low wage illegal workers or some Mexican trying to feed his family?
> 
> Who is more likely to be arrested?
Click to expand...

Neither is a criminal .... welcome to capitalism.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
Click to expand...


Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!

Grow up.


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "retired" only because they couldn't find work, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely, you jest ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
> 
> What have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prove yourself incapable once again ....
> 
> First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
> 
> You need to rethink your logic ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.
> 
> Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
> 
> Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
> 
> Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
> 
> Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
> 
> The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
Click to expand...


LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?

Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).

Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.

Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
Click to expand...

Are you  so dense you can't even see the abject stupidity of what you just said?


----------



## AgentSparky

bripat9643 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting read
> 
> Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ways to debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn’t much of a debate at all. Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy. “That is not controversial,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told me. Shierholz also said that “there is a consensus that, on average, the incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of immigration.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether they benefit some abstraction called "the economy" isn't the issue.  Whether they benefit native born Americans is the issue, and they clearly don't.  If all the growth goes to the 1% or the immigrants, how does that benefit me?
Click to expand...


If illegal immigrants were able to work in Hollywood for only a fraction of the salary that Screen Actor's Guild or Director makes or if Public Sector Unions were allowed to hire cheap illegal immigrant labor and if public schools were allowed to hire illegal immigrants as teachers for a fraction of the cost of someone in the teacher's union, the left would be singing a different tune and be against illegal immigration. 

But because illegal immigrants only drives the wages down in the private sector... notably construction, the left could care less.


----------



## charwin95

danielpalos said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should be renewable annually.  why are we not making money on this?
Click to expand...


Renewable means they can come back and forth legally as a tourist but lots of them came in for just one purpose........ seek better opportunity. 
Actually some tourist do post bond and a round trip tickets which we make money but most just take that as a lost in exchange of hiding..... then try to find a white boy to marry.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I can see logic isn't your strong suit ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rebuttal stinks ..........
> What I did old you are facts and reality. No bs. I asked you a very simple questions but you deflected.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't deflect ... you failed to comprehend. 

If you don't stop the influx of illegal aliens, we will continue to collect: 1) uneducated base laborers, and 2) additions supported by the US safety net. 

The numbers used were theoretical - I think you can realistically expect the invasion curve to steepen. What makes you think that allowing more illegals into the country will somehow soften the per capita cost of supporting them? Are we suddenly going to have a flood of PhD's across the border? 

Your inability to look at the problem diametrically has caused you to distort reality - or, you've drank too much kool-aid and need to run to the bathroom and relieve yourself ... cuz you sure ain't thinking clearly.


----------



## charwin95

BrokeLoser said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
Click to expand...


So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

 Obama deported more illegals than any other president. In case you didn't know, that is what we do with  illegals who have broken no laws other than immigration laws. But  here is what the law  indicates  shouold happen to the criminals who hire aid and abet illegal immigrants:









8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
Click to expand...




charwin95 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
Click to expand...


Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
Click to expand...


The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
Click to expand...


Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
His been doing these to me for a while. 

I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?


----------



## JQPublic1

danielpalos said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our exorbitantly expensive drug war in Latin America does not help the situation, either.
Click to expand...

 Our drug war..ini Latin America? Are you saying some of the posters here are confusing illegal immigrants with refugees caused by our exploits in Latin America?...Please go on...expound.


----------



## JQPublic1

Siete said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
Click to expand...

And if you are ok with  the higher food prices that will surely come with American farm laborers... Fine. I'm not advocating one way or the other, I am just throwing the facts out there.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
Click to expand...

But most likely all of them are  far more qualified than you are, stop asking for  Affirmative Action to save your job...heh heh heh!


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I can see logic isn't your strong suit ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rebuttal stinks ..........
> What I did old you are facts and reality. No bs. I asked you a very simple questions but you deflected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't deflect ... you failed to comprehend.
> 
> If you don't stop the influx of illegal aliens, we will continue to collect: 1) uneducated base laborers, and 2) additions supported by the US safety net.
> 
> The numbers used were theoretical - I think you can realistically expect the invasion curve to steepen. What makes you think that allowing more illegals into the country will somehow soften the per capita cost of supporting them? Are we suddenly going to have a flood of PhD's across the border?
> 
> Your inability to look at the problem diametrically has caused you to distort reality - or, you've drank too much kool-aid and need to run to the bathroom and relieve yourself ... cuz you sure ain't thinking clearly.
Click to expand...


Yes you did stupid. Your rebuttal was just one sentence. 

And still you haven't answer any of my simple questions but you came back with another twisted assumptions. 
I never distorted the reality..... I gave you facts. 
So by adding another 5,000 BP tripling the number of BP we currently have...... will continue the influx of illegals by the millions? 

Do you mind answering this simple question?


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?


----------



## JQPublic1

danielpalos said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Come on Danny, don't give up so easily.
> What you're really saying is I made too much sense, you can't counter so you'll just bow out of the debate...right?
> 
> 
> 
> simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.
> 
> We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.
> 
> It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Why be for more, regulation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Danny....stop the babble and properly engage in the discussion...I don't like watching you being ignored.
> Why put foreigners to work here when we can make use of our own desperate bottom feeders?
> 
> "*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> why "throw capitalism under the buss" merely for the inferiority of your national socialist point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ducking and dodging and making no sense in your babble.
> Answer my questions. Don't be scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy.  with Capitalism, we could be generating revenue to help potentially, lower our tax burden.
> 
> all you have is more socialism on a national basis, my goode comrade.
Click to expand...

What is the sense in lowering the tax burden for those making more than $250,000 per year while, simultaneously building walls, reducing the work force,
raising interest rates and increasing spending on defense.


----------



## JQPublic1

AgentSparky said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting read
> 
> Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ways to debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn’t much of a debate at all. Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy. “That is not controversial,” Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told me. Shierholz also said that “there is a consensus that, on average, the incomes of families in this country are increased by a small, but clearly positive amount, because of immigration.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether they benefit some abstraction called "the economy" isn't the issue.  Whether they benefit native born Americans is the issue, and they clearly don't.  If all the growth goes to the 1% or the immigrants, how does that benefit me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If illegal immigrants were able to work in Hollywood for only a fraction of the salary that Screen Actor's Guild or Director makes or if Public Sector Unions were allowed to hire cheap illegal immigrant labor and if public schools were allowed to hire illegal immigrants as teachers for a fraction of the cost of someone in the teacher's union, the left would be singing a different tune and be against illegal immigration.
> 
> But because illegal immigrants only drives the wages down in the private sector... notably construction, the left could care less.
Click to expand...

8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
Click to expand...


That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> 
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
> Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is the bigger criminal?
> The business owner who makes profit off of low wage illegal workers or some Mexican trying to feed his family?
> 
> Who is more likely to be arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is a criminal .... welcome to capitalism.
Click to expand...

8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens


----------



## charwin95

meaner gene said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump staffed Mar-a-lago with H1b holders, because he said he couldn't find qualified americans to clean rooms.
Click to expand...


Trump just said the same thing with his vineyard in Virginia. Last January he requested 6 H1b then  this month he increased it to 29. According to his manager only people that applied was from foreign countries which  pays $10.20/hr. For Americans to take that kind of starvation wages is impossible..........  I think Trump is right we need more foreign workers. 



Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don't want the job

Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don’t want the job
Trump’s immigration crackdown is supposed to help U.S. citizens. For California farmers, it’s worsening a desperate labor shortage.

By NATALIE KITROEFF AND GEOFFREY MOHAN

MARCH 17, 2017 | REPORTING FROM STOCKTON, CALIF.

Arnulfo Solorio’s desperate mission to recruit farmworkers for the Napa Valley took him far from the pastoral vineyards to a raggedy parking lot in Stockton, in the heart of the Central Valley.

Carrying a fat stack of business cards for his company, Silverado Farming, Solorio approached one prospect, a man with only his bottom set of teeth. He told Solorio that farm work in Stockton pays $11 to $12 an hour. Solorio countered: “Look, we are paying $14.50 now, but we are going up to $16.” The man nodded skeptically.

Solorio recruiting workers in Stockton


Play Video
Solorio moved on to two men huddled nearby, and returned quickly. “They were drug addicts,” he said. “And, they didn’t have a car.”

Before the day was through, Solorio would make the same pitch to dozens of men and women, approaching a taco truck, a restaurant and a homeless encampment. Time was short: He needed to find 100 workers to fill his ranks by April 1, when grapevines begin to grow and need constant attention.

Solorio is one of a growing number of agricultural businessmen who say they face an urgent shortage of workers. The flow of labor began drying up when President Obama tightened the border. Now President Trump is promising to deport more people, raid more companies and build a wall on the southern border.


----------



## Dragonlady

Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??



Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.

And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.


----------



## charwin95

Siete said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
Click to expand...


Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc? 
We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...they retired because their retirement savings and homes recovered from the Wages of Supply Side Idiocy, Part Deux, and they could finally afford to....
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you jest ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
> 
> What have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prove yourself incapable once again ....
> 
> First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
> 
> You need to rethink your logic ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.
> 
> Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
> 
> Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
> 
> Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
> 
> Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
> 
> The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
> 
> Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
> 
> Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
Click to expand...

_Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).

_
You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....

Find another game, son.....


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But most likely all of them are  far more qualified than you are, stop asking for  Affirmative Action to save your job...heh heh heh!
Click to expand...


That isn't affirmative action, douche bag.  That's the government doing one of the few legitimate purposes it was created to perform.  illegals, by definition, have no right to be here.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
Click to expand...


Again, a "net gain" for the abstraction called "the economy" is meaningless.   What counts is whether it benefits native born American workers, and any way you look at it it doesn't.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
Click to expand...

That is all normally included in the construction contract ...


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
Click to expand...



"But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"

Really mature.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
Click to expand...




charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
Click to expand...


I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.

THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
Click to expand...




charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
Click to expand...


Right ... I don't know shit. My years as a business owner and CEO mean nothing ... clearly, I don't have a clue.

Why don't you tell us your expertise, and your experience, as a businessman?


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
Click to expand...

Maybe, coincident with deportation, we should cancel food stamps and unemployment. I'm guessing that will cure three problems at once.


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely, you jest ...
> 
> I'm pretty sure you can't fathom the complete idiocy of a statement like that. How is it possible that you are so completely deluded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
> 
> What have you got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prove yourself incapable once again ....
> 
> First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
> 
> You need to rethink your logic ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.
> 
> Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
> 
> Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
> 
> Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
> 
> Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
> 
> The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
> 
> Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
> 
> Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> _
> You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....
> 
> Find another game, son.....
Click to expand...

Really???

Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?

You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
Click to expand...


Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the S&P  soaring from 1335 in Jan 2001 to a lofty 805 by January 2009........new home sales went from about 900,000 per year in 2007 to about 300,000 per year in 2010....
> 
> What have you got?
> 
> 
> 
> You prove yourself incapable once again ....
> 
> First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
> 
> You need to rethink your logic ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.
> 
> Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
> 
> Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
> 
> Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
> 
> Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
> 
> The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
> 
> Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
> 
> Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> _
> You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....
> 
> Find another game, son.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
Click to expand...

I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But most likely all of them are  far more qualified than you are, stop asking for  Affirmative Action to save your job...heh heh heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't affirmative action, douche bag.  That's the government doing one of the few legitimate purposes it was created to perform.  illegals, by definition, have no right to be here.
Click to expand...

But we only want  the brightest and the best... I'd take a  brilliant illegal over your dumbass any day


----------



## Indeependent

Dragonlady said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked!  Greedy assed Neo-Conservatives want cheap labor!?
It's a net gain for those who have stock in food corporations.


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> You prove yourself incapable once again ....
> 
> First, you claim that all is right with the world and that people retired because they finally can - and then, you post numbers that directly disprove your own statement.
> 
> You need to rethink your logic ...
> 
> 
> 
> No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.
> 
> Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
> 
> Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
> 
> Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
> 
> Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
> 
> The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
> 
> Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
> 
> Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> _
> You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....
> 
> Find another game, son.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....
Click to expand...


Same old stuff ... when hoisted by your own petard, attack the poster, not the issue.

We'll take this as your sign of surrender (and admission that you don't know what hell you were talking about)


----------



## Spare_change

Indeependent said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm shocked!  Greedy assed Neo-Conservatives want cheap labor!?
> It's a net gain for those who have stock in food corporations.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't ... but it IS a net gain for the consumer.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
Click to expand...


Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?


----------



## Indeependent

Spare_change said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm shocked!  Greedy assed Neo-Conservatives want cheap labor!?
> It's a net gain for those who have stock in food corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it isn't ... but it IS a net gain for the consumer.
Click to expand...

I don't know as I have no idea as to how crops are actually harvested, picked, etc...
For instance, does anybody here know how many apples are picked per hour per person?


----------



## Indeependent

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?
Click to expand...

Can you tell us how many work visas will be granted per year to those who have to enter through the wall?


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> No issues with my logic......which is why you don't cite one.
> 
> Your original "criticism" was sufficiently vague that I could not clearly discern the pathology from which you are suffering....
> 
> Having dispensed with the need to demonstrate that Supply Side Idiocy Part Deux left the economy, and by extension household net worth, a smoking pyre, I will now close the circle, Hannibal style....
> 
> Is it  your belief that the values of these asset classes didn't improve thereafter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The S&P had recovered all its losses as of late summer, 2013.
> 
> Home inventories were falling, and sales recovering by the same year.
> 
> The Boomers started turning 65 in 2011.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
> 
> Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
> 
> Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> _
> You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....
> 
> Find another game, son.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old stuff ... when hoisted by your own petard, attack the poster, not the issue.
> 
> We'll take this as your sign of surrender (and admission that you don't know what hell you were talking about)
Click to expand...


So far, everything I've said is consistent with the objective evidence I've provided...


You've brought nothing. .


----------



## JQPublic1

Derelict_Drvr said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include the welfare an unemployment benefits of Americans who lost their jobs to illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're correct.  As a youngster I washed dishes, ran a ski lift, bused tables, cleaned up on construction sites, pumped gas, clean up had landscape maintenance, etc.  All jobs now held by illegals.  Even my kids had more job opportunities, though more limited than mine, than kids today.
> 
> Illegals have taken all of the low skilled, entry level jobs that young people filled in the past, causing the unemployment to escalate, exacerbating the situation.
> 
> Where I live illegals have taken ALL of the laborer, pipe layers, brick layers, concrete finishers, burger flippers, some truck driver/heavy equipment operator, roofer, many carpenter, fencing, landscaping, logging, drilling rig, etc, jobs.  As a result there are hundreds of people out of work in our small city.  They have depressed all of those wages to the point that (if a job even comes open) a family man isn't able to support his family.  They've taken skilled jobs from $20..00-$25.00/hr to of $10.00-$12.00/hr.  They get food stamps; welfare; and government supported free medical and dental care from the Merilac Clinic; unemployment in the winter; government assisted low-income housing, so the unemployed  can't find an affordable place to live.
> 
> With the illegals driving down wages and the huge influx of California retirees moving in,  wages have dropped and the cost of living (Housing and food, etc) has risen to the point the the average person can't afford to live here and can't afford to move.
> 
> Trying to find a job here is harder than during the energy bust in the 1980's.
> 
> This is the thing that liberals turn a blind eye to and claim it doesn't exist.  Liberals live in their ivory towers, often in their minds, and view the world though rose colored glasses.  They totally ignored the realities of this, and other things.  They choose to live in their utopian worlds, which are quickly turning in dystopian, in ignorant bliss.
> 
> And they can't figure out why the average working man has chosen conservatism.
> 
> Clueless...
Click to expand...

Illegals haven't  *TAKEN *any jobs, *hey have been given jobs *by criminals who hire them. You  ought to be pressing charges  against anyone in your town state or county who is known to hire illegals. There are many ways of finding out i a person is illegal, especially  if they are getting  the good paying jobs you claim they are getting. By law,  anyone, including US citizens, are supposed to  fill out an I-9 form which is used to verify a prospective employee's eligibility to work in the USA. So if  you suspect the blonde blue eyed guy with an accent who is pouring concrete  at a construction site near you of being an illegal from Greece or wherever, contact ICE. The first thing they will do is audit the employer's personnel files and look for the I-9.


----------



## 12icer

None is the answer to MOST Apples picked, most are picked by machines that clasp the tree, and shake the ripe fruit rom it so the Apples per hour per person has drastically increased to a point they don't need any laborers except to hold "operators wanted" signs and those jobs are almost union scale just about everywhere with NO dues. As for the oshit lies about the economy, any fool knows the recovery during the last eight years has been like a snail running the Indy 500. Only liberal worshipers of the abysmal would herald it, you know like the liberal "feel good as you fail in school and NO grading except for our kids in PRIVATE schools we want to take over as rulers" liberal politicians. As for taking jobs, HELL yes they have because they have people who make them false papers. They even have floating SSAN numbers to get healthcare, and government assistance. If you say not you are full of shit I know a woman working in a town full of them at a doctors office and while oshitass was president she called in some of the SSANs being used by more than one person for Medicare and Medicaid, and they wouldn't even check the numbers. LYING LIBERAL shit think there are not people who know all of the shit they are doing. BUT GUESS WHAT there WILL be a day of reckoning. If we have to FIRE some pussy Repubs to stomp out the slugs so be it.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The $148 billion figure is totally bogus.  He counts, among other things. $38 billion in remittances.  And the tard seems to be oblivious to the fact illegals are not entitled to federal welfare or ObamaCare subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> Should we expand the H1b visa to be more market friendly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't need more Indian software coolies competing with me for the same job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But most likely all of them are  far more qualified than you are, stop asking for  Affirmative Action to save your job...heh heh heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't affirmative action, douche bag.  That's the government doing one of the few legitimate purposes it was created to perform.  illegals, by definition, have no right to be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we only want  the brightest and the best... I'd take a  brilliant illegal over your dumbass any day
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting that you don't give a fuck about actual Americans, asshole. That's what we've been saying for years.  That's why you lost the election.


Indeependent said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm shocked!  Greedy assed Neo-Conservatives want cheap labor!?
> It's a net gain for those who have stock in food corporations.
Click to expand...



Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## BrokeLoser

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?
Click to expand...


How many *Mexicans, Central and South American's *do you think file for visas? Do you really believe they have the intelligence, cash and ability to flow that process through? Come on man.
We aren't all that worried about the aussies and kiwi's overstaying their visas...haha


----------



## Spare_change

NYcarbineer said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?
Click to expand...

Ahhhh ... the art of the dumb question!

Obviously, it doesn't ... but then, it also doesn't stop those who buy a submarine and come in off the coast of Massachusetts - or those who float a dirigible from Vancouver.

Any other dumb questions?


----------



## Spare_change

Indeependent said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm shocked!  Greedy assed Neo-Conservatives want cheap labor!?
> It's a net gain for those who have stock in food corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it isn't ... but it IS a net gain for the consumer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know as I have no idea as to how crops are actually harvested, picked, etc...
> For instance, does anybody here know how many apples are picked per hour per person?
Click to expand...

You have no idea ... you hit it right on the button.
Your question is irrelevant ...


----------



## Spare_change

Indeependent said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell us how many work visas will be granted per year to those who have to enter through the wall?
Click to expand...

Just exactly as many workers as we need to import ... and they will be returned home when their visa is completed ... it's called immigrant visa tracking ... something Dems have refused to implement for 40 years.


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL ----- you seriously don't really believe this, do you?
> 
> Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> Your case of economic relativity doesn't support your point ... you need to try again.
> 
> Now, as for your pathetic attempt to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect, I would strongly suggest you go back to high school. Your facility with the English language leaves much to be desired. Your attempt to distract from the weakness of your argument by dressing it in folderol is childish at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> _Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> _
> You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....
> 
> Find another game, son.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old stuff ... when hoisted by your own petard, attack the poster, not the issue.
> 
> We'll take this as your sign of surrender (and admission that you don't know what hell you were talking about)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, everything I've said is consistent with the objective evidence I've provided...
> 
> 
> You've brought nothing. .
Click to expand...


You've brought false evidence, and irrelevant evidence (some of it contradictory to your suppositions) and then tried, clumsily to weave into some kind of fabric to justify a false conclusion.


----------



## Indeependent

Spare_change said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell us how many work visas will be granted per year to those who have to enter through the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just exactly as many workers as we need to import ... and they will be returned home when their visa is completed ... it's called immigrant visa tracking ... something Dems have refused to implement for 40 years.
Click to expand...

Fascinating; my son was just talking to a financial analyst who specializes in agriculture and he says the immigrants never go home as they do whatever work is at hand when the season ends.
In other words, when they're not farming, they're under cutting US citizens.


----------



## Spare_change

Indeependent said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't work.  You want to stop illegal immigration?  You need an all out war on the people who employ illegals,
> right down to the homeowner who hires an illegal to mow his lawn.
> 
> That will never happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall will work.  It works everywhere it's tried.  Sovling the problem after they have already entered the country is orders of magnitude less likely to be successful.  Of course, that's exactly why you propose it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell us how the wall works to stop those who enter legally and overstay their visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell us how many work visas will be granted per year to those who have to enter through the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just exactly as many workers as we need to import ... and they will be returned home when their visa is completed ... it's called immigrant visa tracking ... something Dems have refused to implement for 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fascinating; my son was just talking to a financial analyst who specializes in agriculture and he says the immigrants never go home as they do whatever work is at hand when the season ends.
> In other words, when they're not farming, they're under cutting US citizens.
Click to expand...

THAT is what happens today - and that's what the immigration reform will fix. Those who have jobs will get to stay on their visa - until it needs to be renewed - and the others will be forced to return to their homes. 

Let's keep in mind that only about 26% of "migrant farm workers" are illegal (those are the ones you are talking about) - "the illegal seasonal farm worker" is about half of the 2.6 million temporary farm workers. More Than 4 Out Of 10 Farmworkers In These Three States Are Undocumented

It is popular, and convenient, for the left to paint all illegal aliens with the "poor farmer working dawn to dusk in the heat and dirt while picking crops for little or no money" - but that is far from reality.

*"Census Bureau data collected from 2005 to 2007, which allow for very detailed analysis, show that even before the recession there were only a tiny number of majority-immigrant occupations. (Click here to see detailed table.)

Among the findings:*

*Of the 465 civilian occupations, only four are majority immigrant. These four occupations account for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans comprise 47 percent of workers in these occupations.
*
*Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly immigrant are in fact majority native-born:*
*Maids and housekeepers: 55 percent native-born*
*Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born*
*Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born*
*Grounds maintenance workers: 65 percent native-born*
*Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born*
*Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 71 percent native-born*
*Janitors: 75 percent native-born*

*There are 93 occupations in which 20 percent or more of workers are immigrants. These high-immigrant occupations are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education. 
*
*There are 23.6 million natives in these high-immigrant occupations (20 percent or more immigrant). These occupations include 19 percent of all native workers. 
*
*Most natives do not face significant job competition from immigrants; however, those who do tend to be less-educated and poorer than those who face relatively little competition from immigrants. 
*
*In high-immigrant occupations, 57 percent of natives have no more than a high school education. In occupations that are less than 20 percent immigrant, 35 percent of natives have no more than a high school education. And in occupations that are less than 10 percent immigrant, only 26 percent of natives have no more than a high school education.
*
*In high-immigrant occupations the average wages and salary for natives is one-fourth lower than in occupations that are less than 20 percent immigrant. 
*
*Some may believe that natives in high-immigrant occupations are older and that few young natives are willing to do that kind of work. But 33 percent of natives in these occupations are age 30 or younger. In occupations that are less than 20 percent immigrant, 28 percent of natives are 30 or younger.
*
*It is worth remembering that not all high-immigrant occupations are lower-skilled and lower-wage. For example, 44 percent of medical scientists are immigrants, as are 34 percent of software engineers, 27 percent of physicians, and 25 percent of chemists. 
*
*It is also worth noting that a number of politically important groups tend to face very little job competition from immigrants. For example, just 10 percent of reporters are immigrants, as are only 6 percent of lawyers and judges and 3 percent of farmers and ranchers.*
*Jobs Americans Won’t Do? A Detailed Look at Immigrant Employment by Occupation
*
Kinda shoots the whole leftist "poor little illegal immigrants" argument in the ass, doesn't it?

The average income for a migrant farm worker is from minimum wage to as much as $18/hour. Considering the average common laborer in Mexico makes about about $4.25 PER DAY, you can see why they come to the US. Some farm workers do earn high wages, but not all do

But, keep in mind, these are uneducated, unskilled workers who bring nothing to the job market except a strong back. That also does not include the room and board provided by the farmer for his worker. 

However, even that doesn't accurately portray the illegal alien wage situation in the US. A 2007 study showed that the average income/year was about $30,000. Considering that this average is adversely affected by the migrant farmworker wages, it's easy to see that unqualified, uneducated illegal immigrants are getting paid a respectable wage. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States


----------



## P@triot

What a tragedy. From mass shootings to rape of women to illegals terrorizing our nation and everything in between - the Dumbocrats are just covered in blood. They've done _everything_ in their power to facilitate crime.

'14-Year-Old Girl Would Never Have Been Raped' if We Could’ve Done Our Job, Border Patrol Council Says


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it.


Look at Nostradamus here...


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




*So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?  *_You're figure just includes materials and not the cost of labor--so you can double that figure easily. _You might want to watch this video to see how well fences and WALLS really work.  And at the end of this video it will let you know how much money we have already spent on *useless* fences and walls.


_Anything that an illegal can SEE can and will ALWAYS be compromised.  The only way to handle this is with high tech motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations that would be situated along the border to pick them up as they cross.  Just them knowing that will stop illegal crossings._


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.


Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.


JQPublic1 said:


> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.


In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.


JQPublic1 said:


> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.


Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.


JQPublic1 said:


> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.


Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.


JQPublic1 said:


> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!


From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?


You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.


----------



## oreo

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
Click to expand...



500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in my garage.

Plus a lot of this land is Indian reservation and private property where they will not be able to build anything.

You might try watching this video dumbass--you might actually *LEARN* something.    After this video it will move into another video regarding the terrain they're looking at.


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in  my garage.
Click to expand...

I do *not* support the wall. I think that money would be exponentially better spent on technology. But that being said, it's absurd to proclaim a 30-foot wall "nothing". I mean, I'm glad you have a "40-foot extension ladder" in your garage but are you planning on carrying that for 400 miles through the desert? If not - then you literally make no case here whatsoever.


----------



## oreo

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in  my garage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do *not* support the wall. I think that money would be exponentially better spent on technology. But that being said, it's absurd to proclaim a 30-foot wall "nothing". I mean, I'm glad you have a "40-foot extension ladder" in your garage but are you planning on carrying that for 400 miles through the desert? If not - then you literally make no case here whatsoever.
Click to expand...


If you'll ever watch the video, you'll note that they can *drive a vehicle up to the wall-*-LOL So extension ladders will be no problem at all.  _If you got a group of illegals they'll have no problems walking an extension ladder to the wall, and then they'll leave the ladder on the Mexican side of the wall to use it again.  In fact you'll see ladders in the below video that I just described. _ You also will notice the *240 TUNNELS they found in San Diego alone* to get under an existing wall, and *they know there are more that they haven't found.
*
The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.





The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels

Drug cartels have no problems spending millions of dollars on tunnels.


----------



## Reasonable




----------



## Reasonable

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in  my garage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do *not* support the wall. I think that money would be exponentially better spent on technology. But that being said, it's absurd to proclaim a 30-foot wall "nothing". I mean, I'm glad you have a "40-foot extension ladder" in your garage but are you planning on carrying that for 400 miles through the desert? If not - then you literally make no case here whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you'll ever watch the video, you'll note that they can *drive a vehicle up to the wall-*-LOL So extension ladders will be no problem at all. You also will notice the *240 TUNNELS they found in San Diego alone* to get under an existing wall, and *they know there are more that they haven't found.
> *
> The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> Drug cartels have no problems spending millions of dollars on tunnels.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the wall doesnt do what it was intended to do. Keeping a promise to his base, a $58 billion promise, is all that counts.


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.


I agree with you 100% on that. But you're dead-wrong on everything you're saying about the wall. For starters - almost *none* of the people who cross the border do so in an automobile. They come on foot. That is a *fact*.

In addition - what good is a ladder and a truck when there is a 30-foot drop on the other side that will definitely break bones and likely kill you? And don't tell me anyone is carrying a second 40-foot ladder up the first 40-foot ladder and dropping it properly on the other side. Unless the people are fuck'n Navy Seals - that *isn't* happening _ever_.

It will overwhelmingly stem the flow. But that being said - it's simply not the best use of the money. Drones to cover all of the border (including gulf states which won't get the wall) is a much better use of the funds. Technology would be more effective and more efficient than a wall.


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> It doesn't matter if the wall doesnt do what it was intended to do. *Keeping a promise* to his base, a $58 billion promise, is all that counts.


Only a Dumbocrat would consider that a negative...


----------



## oreo

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100% on that. But you're dead-wrong on everything you're saying about the wall. For starters - almost *none* of the people who cross the border do so in an automobile. They come on foot. That is a *fact*.
> 
> In addition - what good is a ladder and a truck when there is a 30-foot drop on the other side that will definitely break bones and likely kill you? And don't tell me anyone is carrying a second 40-foot ladder up the first 40-foot ladder and dropping it properly on the other side. Unless the people are fuck'n Navy Seals - that *isn't* happening _ever_.
> 
> It will overwhelmingly stem the flow. But that being said - it's simply not the best use of the money. Drones to cover all of the border (including gulf states which won't get the wall) is a much better use of the funds. Technology would be more effective and more efficient than a wall.
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard of a rope and pulley's, generators that they can bring, along with cement saws, & jackhammers.  You build a 1000 mile wall you'll have a 1000 holes in it,and a tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.

They have the same tools we have and these coyotes know where to go, and they're excellent at getting around obstacles.  _They're probably laughing their ass's off about this wall right now.  They will go right to the WALL because they know it won't be as protected by border patrol who will be concentrating on areas where there is no WALL.

The biggest success we had was when G.W. Bush ordered National Guard down to the border.  Attempted crossings dropped by a whopping 67%, just because they knew they were there.  Now you think we would learn something from that, but hell no we have got this orange haired jack ass that doesn't know jack shit about the border who has trilled the mass's with the idea of a worthless 21.6 billion 30' wall that he claims will work.


_


----------



## Rustic

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100% on that. But you're dead-wrong on everything you're saying about the wall. For starters - almost *none* of the people who cross the border do so in an automobile. They come on foot. That is a *fact*.
> 
> In addition - what good is a ladder and a truck when there is a 30-foot drop on the other side that will definitely break bones and likely kill you? And don't tell me anyone is carrying a second 40-foot ladder up the first 40-foot ladder and dropping it properly on the other side. Unless the people are fuck'n Navy Seals - that *isn't* happening _ever_.
> 
> It will overwhelmingly stem the flow. But that being said - it's simply not the best use of the money. Drones to cover all of the border (including gulf states which won't get the wall) is a much better use of the funds. Technology would be more effective and more efficient than a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of a rope and pulley's, generators that they can bring, along with cement saws, & jackhammers.  You build a 1000 mile wall you'll have a 1000 holes in it,and a tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> They have the same tools we do and these coyotes know where to go, and they're excellent at getting around obstacles.  _They're probably laughing their ass's off about this wall right now.  They will go right to the WALL because they know it won't be as protected by border patrol who will be concentrating on areas where there is no WALL.
> 
> The biggest success we had was when G.W. Bush ordered National Guard down to the border.  Attempted crossings dropped by a whopping 67%, just because they knew they were there.  Now you think we would learn something from that, but hell no we have got this orange haired jack ass that doesn't know jack shit about the border who has trilled the mass's with the idea of a worthless 30' wall that he claims will work._
Click to expand...

Shoot first ask questions later


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> Have you ever heard of a rope and pulley's, generators that they can bring, along with cement saws, & jackhammers.


Have you ever heard of uninformed _bullshit_? The overwhelming majority of people that have crossed the border don't own an automobile - much less generators and jackhammers. Jesus...who the fuck owns a jackhammer? I have a billion times the wealth that these people do and I don't own a jackhammer. I do own a generator but it weighs a mere 1,200lbs. or so and couldn't be carried by two men for 5 feet much less hundreds of miles through a dessert.

You don't need insane bullshit to support your position. Your absolutely right that technology is the better solution. But you're killing yourself with nonsense. Nobody takes you seriously when you try to claim that these people from a fuck'n third-world country are showing up with Hummer, generators, jackhammers, and a pulley system. You sound like a lunatic and it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about when you say this nonsense.


----------



## Yarddog

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​





Does that count money sent back to Mexico?


----------



## Reasonable

P@triot said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the wall doesnt do what it was intended to do. *Keeping a promise* to his base, a $58 billion promise, is all that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat would consider that a negative...
Click to expand...

Hey dopey..  what about the other 65% of the country?
Didn't he say he was the president of ALL the people?
Oh right. We're not supposed to take the pathological liar literally. Lmao.
You obviously have no idea how much money $58 billion is and how it can be put to better use.


----------



## oreo

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of a rope and pulley's, generators that they can bring, along with cement saws, & jackhammers.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of uninformed _bullshit_? The overwhelming majority of people that have crossed the border don't own an automobile - much less generators and jackhammers. Jesus...who the fuck owns a jackhammer? I have a billion times the wealth that these people do and I don't own a jackhammer. I do own a generator but it weighs a mere 1,200lbs. or so and couldn't be carried by two men for 5 feet much less hundreds of miles through a dessert.
> 
> You don't need insane bullshit to support your position. Your absolutely right that technology is the better solution. But you're killing yourself with nonsense. Nobody takes you seriously when you try to claim that these people from a fuck'n third-world country are showing up with Hummer, generators, jackhammers, and a pulley system. You sound like a lunatic and it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about when you say this nonsense.
Click to expand...



Sweet baby Jesus--People just don't wander around the desert to cross the border--There  is always a PLAN.  Coyetes are paid *3 thousand dollars per head* to get them over the border. Drug cartels will spend millions to get drugs across the border.  Yes there is money, tools and equipment in Mexico--they do have HOME DEPOT'S.

It's more than obvious you've never been to Mexico or gone into a border town.

They know where to go, they know what they'll need--they'll bring what they need to make  it happen.

There are programs on National Geographic  about the border, if you would ever get off of your T.V. reality shows and FOX News, you'll learn something.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
Click to expand...


Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..

Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?


----------



## Johann

Landmines are cheaper.


----------



## Johann

A landmine cost, according to unicef, between $3-$30. Even if every landmine cost 30 bucks, it would only cost a couple million to mine the whole 2,000 mile border.

A couple of explosions and amputations later, they wouldn't dare cross our southern border.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in  my garage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do *not* support the wall. I think that money would be exponentially better spent on technology. But that being said, it's absurd to proclaim a 30-foot wall "nothing". I mean, I'm glad you have a "40-foot extension ladder" in your garage but are you planning on carrying that for 400 miles through the desert? If not - then you literally make no case here whatsoever.
Click to expand...

 You're an idiot. A 40 ft sliding ladder can be easily transported across the desert  by a 20 ft utility trailer hooked to  a 4X4.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> What a tragedy. From mass shootings to rape of women to illegals terrorizing our nation and everything in between - the Dumbocrats are just covered in blood. They've done _everything_ in their power to facilitate crime.
> 
> '14-Year-Old Girl Would Never Have Been Raped' if We Could’ve Done Our Job, Border Patrol Council Says


One incident and you want to use it to profile undocumented workers? Guess what? The thousands of rapes committed by White American males in this country  would occur whether the border patrol does its job or not!


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> Thanks for admitting that you don't give a fuck about actual Americans, asshole. That's what we've been saying for years. That's why you lost the election.



You aren't an actual American, you are a putz .


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?  *_You're figure just includes materials and not the cost of labor--so you can double that figure easily. _You might want to watch this video to see how well fences and WALLS really work.  And at the end of this video it will let you know how much money we have already spent on *useless* fences and walls.
> 
> 
> _Anything that an illegal can SEE can and will ALWAYS be compromised.  The only way to handle this is with high tech motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations that would be situated along the border to pick them up as they cross.  Just them knowing that will stop illegal crossings._
Click to expand...


$21 billion is the total cost, numskull.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you don't give a fuck about actual Americans, asshole. That's what we've been saying for years. That's why you lost the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't an actual American, you are a putz .
Click to expand...

Brilliant argument.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in  my garage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do *not* support the wall. I think that money would be exponentially better spent on technology. But that being said, it's absurd to proclaim a 30-foot wall "nothing". I mean, I'm glad you have a "40-foot extension ladder" in your garage but are you planning on carrying that for 400 miles through the desert? If not - then you literally make no case here whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you'll ever watch the video, you'll note that they can *drive a vehicle up to the wall-*-LOL So extension ladders will be no problem at all.  _If you got a group of illegals they'll have no problems walking an extension ladder to the wall, and then they'll leave the ladder on the Mexican side of the wall to use it again.  In fact you'll see ladders in the below video that I just described. _ You also will notice the *240 TUNNELS they found in San Diego alone* to get under an existing wall, and *they know there are more that they haven't found.
> *
> The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> Drug cartels have no problems spending millions of dollars on tunnels.
Click to expand...


The reality is that you're making excuses for doing nothing.  That's what you and your ilk have been doing for decades.

No one is fooled.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw 21.6 BILLION down the toilet?
> 
> 
> 
> You celebrated like hell when Barack Obama threw *$10 trillion* down the toilet. At least a wall will serve an actual purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 500 times now I have told you that I am not a liberal.   i  have been here since 2007 and have over 16,000 posts to prove it.  I am giving you  *REALITY* here.  I doubt many of you have even seen the southern border.  A 30' foot  wall is NOTHING.  I have 40' extension ladder in my garage.
> 
> Plus a lot of this land is Indian reservation and private property where they will not be able to build anything.
> 
> You might try watching this video dumbass--you might actually *LEARN* something.    After this video it will move into another video regarding the terrain they're looking at.
Click to expand...

You walk like a liberal, talk like a liberal and squawk like a liberal.


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to handle the border is with high tech and 21.6  billion dollars would go a long way in getting that done.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100% on that. But you're dead-wrong on everything you're saying about the wall. For starters - almost *none* of the people who cross the border do so in an automobile. They come on foot. That is a *fact*.
> 
> In addition - what good is a ladder and a truck when there is a 30-foot drop on the other side that will definitely break bones and likely kill you? And don't tell me anyone is carrying a second 40-foot ladder up the first 40-foot ladder and dropping it properly on the other side. Unless the people are fuck'n Navy Seals - that *isn't* happening _ever_.
> 
> It will overwhelmingly stem the flow. But that being said - it's simply not the best use of the money. Drones to cover all of the border (including gulf states which won't get the wall) is a much better use of the funds. Technology would be more effective and more efficient than a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of a rope and pulley's, generators that they can bring, along with cement saws, & jackhammers.  You build a 1000 mile wall you'll have a 1000 holes in it,and a tunnels underneath it as soon as it's built.
> 
> They have the same tools we have and these coyotes know where to go, and they're excellent at getting around obstacles.  _They're probably laughing their ass's off about this wall right now.  They will go right to the WALL because they know it won't be as protected by border patrol who will be concentrating on areas where there is no WALL.
> 
> The biggest success we had was when G.W. Bush ordered National Guard down to the border.  Attempted crossings dropped by a whopping 67%, just because they knew they were there.  Now you think we would learn something from that, but hell no we have got this orange haired jack ass that doesn't know jack shit about the border who has trilled the mass's with the idea of a worthless 21.6 billion 30' wall that he claims will work.
> 
> _
Click to expand...

Again, dumbass, you're ignoring the fact that armed men will be guarding the wall.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
Click to expand...


Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
Click to expand...


Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....


----------



## IcebergSlim

Spare_change said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Tell me --- just exactly how long will it take for a retiree's investments to return to pre-recession purchase power levels? (The answer is a lot longer than they will be alive).
> 
> _
> You are innumerate........The S&P reached the inflation adjusted pre-recession highs in May 2014.....Over the past 3 years returns have outpaced inflation by nearly 600 basis points....
> 
> Find another game, son.....
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old stuff ... when hoisted by your own petard, attack the poster, not the issue.
> 
> We'll take this as your sign of surrender (and admission that you don't know what hell you were talking about)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, everything I've said is consistent with the objective evidence I've provided...
> 
> 
> You've brought nothing. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've brought false evidence, and irrelevant evidence (some of it contradictory to your suppositions) and then tried, clumsily to weave into some kind of fabric to justify a false conclusion.
Click to expand...

There is no false evidence.....
You're lying.

The conclusion is entirely consistent with the premise, and evidence.

You've spent the past 20 years reading Drudge headlines....and now you can't link two cogent thoughts.


----------



## IcebergSlim

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
Click to expand...

So you Boldly Assert, Bri.......but your Bold Assertions have no currency.


----------



## JoeB131

BrokeLoser said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey fellas... just so I know the type of chareacter I'm dealing with...let me ask you this.
> If I left my keys in the ignition of my car and it got stolen did I incentives the thieves and perpetuate the theft?
> Did I deserve to have my car stolen?
> Just because I made the theft possible should the thieves have stolen my car?
> Apples and oranges....right? Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??
> 
> You might want to shine a little reality on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is they come here because the rich hire them.  No jobs, no immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post that's been conveniently ignored so whackos can continue to frame and spin their fabricated bullshit. (See below)
> "Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country?
> How many piece of shit junker autos do you think they buy, how many bottles of Tapatio or cans of Bud Light? Payroll taxes? They pay a zero percent effective tax rate and don't tell me that many use a bogus tax id to pay taxes yet never collect the return...that's absolute bullshit and just another fabricated Liberal myth...those types claim 99 dependents and essentially exempt themselves from withholding."
Click to expand...


Dude. The Cleaners called.  They said that they were able to get the soot stains out of your white sheets but the part where the cross burned the sleeve, they couldn't do anything about.


----------



## JoeB131

BrokeLoser said:


> Haha...you're quite the funny guy. Don't be ashamed of your heritage bud...admit it and own your filth....it's okay.
> I'm not the least bit worried about a beaner stealing my job as it requires cash, an iQ and communication skills...resources and skill sets beaners don't possess. You and I both know the only jobs they steal are jobs suited for the ignorant, the young, and or the desperate. Further, no one here "lives in terror"...you see, 5' tall smelly beaners don't intimidate anyone.



Really, because you actually type like your pissing yourself at the thought of a Hispanic family moving in next door.


----------



## oreo

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you don't give a fuck about actual Americans, asshole. That's what we've been saying for years. That's why you lost the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't an actual American, you are a putz .
Click to expand...



It's you that doesn't give a crap about Americans.  Everyone knows that something needs to be done to secure the border--but there is no point in wasting billions of dollars--so you can claim that something was done.   21.6 billion is just the estimate on *materials* (IT does not include labor)--meaning this is going to double--and knowing government it will probably triple in cost.

High tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations are the only way to do this.   We have experience with walls and fences already.  THEY DON'T WORK.

Watch these video's they have a lot of information in them. The following video will go into the terrain, etc. etc.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> 
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
Click to expand...


But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
Click to expand...


So why the fuck you want to get involved?


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the wall doesnt do what it was intended to do. *Keeping a promise* to his base, a $58 billion promise, is all that counts.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a Dumbocrat would consider that a negative...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dopey..  what about the other 65% of the country?
Click to expand...

What about the other *25%* of the country? What do you and them have to do with building a wall?!? 

It's amazing - when Barack Obama pissed in the face of 75% of the country and literally insulted them (referring to them as "enemies" and saying "they can ride in the backseat) you loved it. But now all of a sudden - when it's not "your" guy in the White House you want to cry like a little bitch if he doesn't cater to _you_? You sound like a lunatic (and you whine like a snowflake).


----------



## P@triot

Reasonable said:


> You obviously have no idea how much money $58 billion is and how it can be put to better use.


Coming from the nitwit who cheered when Barack Obama pissed away *$10 trillion* beyond the budget that he also pissed away.

$58 billion is laughable compared to $10 trillion. At least when President Trump is done, we'll have a wall to show for the money and we'll be saving $148 billion per _year_ on illegal alien costs. Of course, being a typical parasite who mooches off of society, you have no concept of Return on Investment. Time for you to go play now junior. The adults are talking.


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> Sweet baby Jesus--People just don't wander around the desert to cross the border--There  is always a PLAN.  Coyetes are paid *3 thousand dollars per head* to get them over the border.


On foot...


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> *Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
> 
> THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.

On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> Yes there is money, tools and equipment in Mexico--they do have HOME DEPOT'S.


So weird...I don't see a single automobile (besides Border Patrol of course), ladder, or jackhammer. How about _you_?


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> It's more than obvious you've never been to Mexico or gone into a border town.


I've been privy to classified photographs and information regarding Border Patrol operations along the Mexican border. How about _you_?

Game over. You get your info from MSNBC. I get it from classified reports. I've forgotten more about this than you will _ever_ know. Aside from the drug cartels, nearly everyone arrives on foot without tools or resources. You're too uninformed to even realize how many people die per year trying to cross the border because they got lost in the desert and ran out of what little water they had.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... I don't know shit. My years as a business owner and CEO mean nothing ... clearly, I don't have a clue.
> 
> Why don't you tell us your expertise, and your experience, as a businessman?
Click to expand...


Right..... Suddenly you are business owner. Bullshit.............. And what is business has to do with your twisted opinion? Desperation time........ I know lots of business owners that are stupid like you but smart enough not to get involved in this kind of conversation. You are just lightweight. 

I'm in the business of medical instruments and consumable including reagents and blood products for the last 18 years and my parents before that. Located in San Diego and Miami.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe, coincident with deportation, we should cancel food stamps and unemployment. I'm guessing that will cure three problems at once.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Try again.


----------



## oreo

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is money, tools and equipment in Mexico--they do have HOME DEPOT'S.
> 
> 
> 
> So weird...I don't see a single automobile (besides Border Patrol of course), ladder, or jackhammer. How about _you_?
> 
> View attachment 118865
Click to expand...


Do you also see a 30' WALL there--_(that would easily *conceal* a view of cars?)_--LOL  Hell with a 30' ---1000 mile long WALL they'll no longer have to waste a couple of days walking up to the border, they'll be able to drive right up to it.  They'll have a 1000 mile frontage road on their side of the wall, and build permanent stairs on their side of the wall.  _It's laughable what they can do with this._


































And let's not forget about the tunnels.





The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels

This is just a few of the things they've already done with our walls and fences.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU?


No. No I don't. At all. That's as absurd as saying "we need to study the economic 'consequences' of stopping rapists before we stop them". You enforce the law.

Guess what - cocaine and heroin have a monumental economic effect on the economy. Would you advocate allowing that to go on while you "study" the effects? We're either a law of nations or were not. You people desperately want to turn America into Somalia and that is going to end terribly for _you_. My side of the aisle is heavily armed and thoroughly trained. Your side of the aisle cross-dresses and is "triggered" into the fetal position by mere words.


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
Click to expand...


I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20 
And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost? 
I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?


----------



## IcebergSlim

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
Click to expand...

_Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass_
_
_
How is it "on the books"?


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> No. No I don't. At all. That's as absurd as saying "we need to study the economic 'consequences' of stopping rapists before we stop them". You enforce the law.
> 
> Guess what - cocaine and heroin have a monumental economic effect on the economy. Would you advocate allowing that to go on while you "study" the effects? We're either a law of nations or were not. You people desperately want to turn America into Somalia and that is going to end terribly for _you_. My side of the aisle is heavily armed and thoroughly trained. Your side of the aisle cross-dresses and is "triggered" into the fetal position by mere words.
Click to expand...

Please be quiet, you blithering imbecile....

The issue is the ECONOMIC cost/benefit. This involves numbers, and thereby disqualifies you from participating.


_My side of the aisle is heavily armed and thoroughly trained_


You're a bunch of emphysematic fat white fucks dragging cpap trolleys. I'll hear you coming across the state line....


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So weird...I don't see a single automobile (besides Border Patrol of course), ladder, or jackhammer. How about _you_?
> 
> View attachment 118865
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also see a WALL there--LOL
Click to expand...

That's not even the U.S. - Mexico border!!! That's Africa. And get this - it's from an article which talks about how walls *work*. 

You're so intellectually lazy that you can't even do your homework properly. You Google what you want to see and then you post it without understanding what you are posting.

The places where walls work - AEI

http://spanishnewstoday.com/images/...nto-spain-over-ceuta-border-fence_1_large.jpg


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is money, tools and equipment in Mexico--they do have HOME DEPOT'S.
> 
> 
> 
> So weird...I don't see a single automobile (besides Border Patrol of course), ladder, or jackhammer. How about _you_?
> 
> View attachment 118865
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is money, tools and equipment in Mexico--they do have HOME DEPOT'S.
> 
> 
> 
> So weird...I don't see a single automobile (besides Border Patrol of course), ladder, or jackhammer. How about _you_?
> 
> View attachment 118865
Click to expand...

Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?


----------



## Moonglow

> Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year



Just put a tariff on the illegals...


----------



## P@triot

IcebergSlim said:


> You're a bunch of emphysematic fat white fucks dragging cpap trolleys. I'll hear you coming across the state line....


Oh boy....the racist black man is crying _again_.


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a bunch of emphysematic fat white fucks dragging cpap trolleys. I'll hear you coming across the state line....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy....the racist black man is crying _again_.
Click to expand...

I'm High White, Inbred Trash....Northern northern Europe....


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?


You don't think we have a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border yet? 

This is just outside of Campo, California - snowflake. How stupid do you look right now?


----------



## GaryDog

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think we have a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border yet?
> 
> This is just outside of Campo, California - snowflake. How stupid do you look right now?
> 
> View attachment 118877
Click to expand...


That's a border fence that covers less than 1/1000th of the border.

How stupid do you look right now?


----------



## P@triot

IcebergSlim said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a bunch of emphysematic fat white fucks dragging cpap trolleys. I'll hear you coming across the state line....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy....the racist black man is crying _again_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm High White, Inbred Trash....Northern northern Europe....
Click to expand...

You're also completely illiterate. Only proper nouns should be capitalized snowflake. Shouldn't you be on your way to the welfare office right about now?


----------



## P@triot

GaryDog said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think we have a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border yet?
> 
> This is just outside of Campo, California - snowflake. How stupid do you look right now?
> 
> View attachment 118877
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a border fence that covers less than 1/1000th of the border.
> 
> How stupid do you look right now?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one claiming there is "no wall" like you and your fellow Dumbocrats. It's astounding how uninformed you people are.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Hey,dim ass


What is a "dim ass"?


----------



## P@triot

IcebergSlim said:


> The issue is the ECONOMIC cost/benefit. This involves numbers, and thereby disqualifies you from participating.


The issue is that we have laws and they _will_ be *enforced*. Now hurry up and get your ass to the welfare office before we shut that down too.


----------



## P@triot

charwin95 said:


> On top of that *he didn't pressed me* on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?


You never did tell us what nation you snuck into the United States from.


----------



## meaner gene

P@triot said:


> You're also completely illiterate. *Only proper nouns should be capitalized snowflake.* Shouldn't you be on your way to the welfare office right about now?



Do you mInd if* I* disagree?


----------



## GHook93

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here



That is always the leftist line. We lose a to more than what they bring: 
(1) Entitlements - yes they use identity theft to gain access to food stamps, Medicaid, SSN Disability and Sect 8.
(2) Special school programs - one very costly public school program is English as a Second Language. They cost us big in the form of property taxes.
(3) Hospitals - Anytime I go to the emergency 87887 it is filled with illegals. Where does Jose bill get tossed onto?
(4) Identity Theft - one thing piss me off the most about liberal stand point is they call illegals law abiding. Forget the fact they broke the law to come here illegally, but the vast majority of them actively practice identity theft to get jobs, get access to entitlement programs  and even commit crimes. Identity theft is a serious crime and it ruins lives. It should be a deportable offense.
(5) Job, yes jobs Americans will do: only 4% work in agriculture.  23% work in the cleaning service, but 21% work in the technical field 33% work in construction. Yes American can and do work in these industries.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/site...ons/five_industry_occupation_foreign_born.pdf

The cost us more


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## BluesLegend

Trump's wall could have already been built twice over just on the savings of illegal tax fraud during the Obama years.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
Click to expand...



It's called working under the table..


And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?


You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place. 



Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you.. 


Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded. 



.


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a bunch of emphysematic fat white fucks dragging cpap trolleys. I'll hear you coming across the state line....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy....the racist black man is crying _again_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm High White, Inbred Trash....Northern northern Europe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're also completely illiterate. Only proper nouns should be capitalized snowflake. Shouldn't you be on your way to the welfare office right about now?
Click to expand...


Trust me on this.......you don't have the onions to go there, Jethro....

And "Patriot" is spelled with an "a".....


----------



## IcebergSlim

BluesLegend said:


> Trump's wall could have already been built twice over just on the savings of illegal tax fraud during the Obama years.


What "iliegal tax fraud" is that, Tweaker?


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is the ECONOMIC cost/benefit. This involves numbers, and thereby disqualifies you from participating.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that we have laws and they _will_ be *enforced*. Now hurry up and get your ass to the welfare office before we shut that down too.
Click to expand...

Dude,


I'm paid to think....anyone ever offer you a penny for your intellectual output?


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo, what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been stealing from hard working real American's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor. 
You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?

And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs? 
You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU?
> 
> 
> 
> No. No I don't. At all. That's as absurd as saying "we need to study the economic 'consequences' of stopping rapists before we stop them". You enforce the law.
> 
> Guess what - cocaine and heroin have a monumental economic effect on the economy. Would you advocate allowing that to go on while you "study" the effects? We're either a law of nations or were not. You people desperately want to turn America into Somalia and that is going to end terribly for _you_. My side of the aisle is heavily armed and thoroughly trained. Your side of the aisle cross-dresses and is "triggered" into the fetal position by mere words.
Click to expand...

_Guess what - cocaine and heroin have a monumental economic effect on the economy. _

can you quantify that?


----------



## BrokeLoser

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
Click to expand...


(Boy this shit is getting old...copy and pasted...see below...problem solved)

"*It's time to think outside the box and get aggressive. Between welfare recipients and those incarcerated we would have no problem manning all facets of agriculture.
This could easily drive the final cost of the commodity down to the end user / consumer."*

"*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*


----------



## charwin95

P@triot said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that *he didn't pressed me* on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> 
> 
> You never did tell us what nation you snuck into the United States from.
Click to expand...


Rottweiler ------- People here are kicking your ass all over the place and embarrassing yourself. Don't you think you have enough in your plate? You are so concerned about Snowflake or snowflake because you have zero rebuttal. 
That means your ass is bleeding trying to deflect which is about your style.

I thought by now you already put me on ignore.--------- Do you want me to kick your ass again?


----------



## P@triot

IcebergSlim said:


> Dude, I'm paid to think....anyone ever offer you a penny for your intellectual output?


Dude...you're paid to mooch off of society. And _still_ you want to play the "victim".


----------



## charwin95

BrokeLoser said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Boy this shit is getting old...copy and pasted...see below...problem solved)
> 
> "*It's time to think outside the box and get aggressive. Between welfare recipients and those incarcerated we would have no problem manning all facets of agriculture.
> This could easily drive the final cost of the commodity down to the end user / consumer."*
> 
> "*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*
Click to expand...


Dude ------ You need apologize before I give any kind of response. And stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## P@triot

charwin95 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that *he didn't pressed me* on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> 
> 
> You never did tell us what nation you snuck into the United States from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People here are kicking your ass all over the place and embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

The illiteracy continues. Why are you _so_ afraid to tell us why country you are from?


----------



## P@triot

charwin95 said:


> Dude ------ You need apologize before I give any kind of response.


Oh boy....the snowflake foreigner wants an apology before he continues. Maybe this isn't a "he". Charwin is ultra-sensitive like a woman.


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm paid to think....anyone ever offer you a penny for your intellectual output?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you're paid to mooch off of society. And _still_ you want to play the "victim".
Click to expand...

I'm in finance, douche.....why do you hate capitalism?


----------



## P@triot

IcebergSlim said:


> I'm in finance, douche.....why do you hate capitalism?


Picking up a welfare check does not make you "in finance".


----------



## charwin95

P@triot said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On top of that *he didn't pressed me* on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> 
> 
> You never did tell us what nation you snuck into the United States from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People here are kicking your ass all over the place and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The illiteracy continues. Why are you _so_ afraid to tell us why country you are from?
Click to expand...


If this is all you got as always.......  then you are just a waste of my time. 
Stop embarrassing yourself dude and trying to deflect from others. 
Maybe I will put you in my ignore list.


----------



## KissMy

Gotta love laughing at stupid Trump voters! Especially Women voting for the party who calls them Feminazi, explodes healthcare prices & cuts their access to it.

Indiana woman thought Trump would deport 'bad hombres.' Instead, he's deporting her law-abiding husband.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> hard working Americans arent willing to pick strawberries, and oranges 12 hours a day for min wage. They need a union to make sure farmers arent screwing them.
> 
> sooooooooooooo, where and when do start working jobs that an illegal took away from you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
Click to expand...



They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas 


God you refuse to get supply and demand.


Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently we have shortages of these workers............  and if we deport these illegals.
> Who do they expect to work on agricultural, poultry, meat products etc etc etc?
> We might as well shut down all these enterprises then let's see what happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
Click to expand...


How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$? 
I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers. 
What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe: 
1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18. 
2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20? 
Then pay babysitter.
4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions. 
5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business? 
6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?


----------



## Spare_change

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old stuff ... when hoisted by your own petard, attack the poster, not the issue.
> 
> We'll take this as your sign of surrender (and admission that you don't know what hell you were talking about)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, everything I've said is consistent with the objective evidence I've provided...
> 
> 
> You've brought nothing. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've brought false evidence, and irrelevant evidence (some of it contradictory to your suppositions) and then tried, clumsily to weave into some kind of fabric to justify a false conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no false evidence.....
> You're lying.
> 
> The conclusion is entirely consistent with the premise, and evidence.
> 
> You've spent the past 20 years reading Drudge headlines....and now you can't link two cogent thoughts.
Click to expand...




IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really???
> 
> Whose investments do you suppose recovered? Think it was your mama's Social Security? Drive her Medicare costs down? Wait - I bet it lowered the cost of her food, lights, and energy, right?
> 
> You are talking apples and oranges ... clearly, indicating you don't understand fruit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got no problem spotting a steaming pile of horse dung when I see it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old stuff ... when hoisted by your own petard, attack the poster, not the issue.
> 
> We'll take this as your sign of surrender (and admission that you don't know what hell you were talking about)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far, everything I've said is consistent with the objective evidence I've provided...
> 
> 
> You've brought nothing. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've brought false evidence, and irrelevant evidence (some of it contradictory to your suppositions) and then tried, clumsily to weave into some kind of fabric to justify a false conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no false evidence.....
> You're lying.
> 
> The conclusion is entirely consistent with the premise, and evidence.
> 
> You've spent the past 20 years reading Drudge headlines....and now you can't link two cogent thoughts.
Click to expand...

Let's create a little timeline of your nonsense ...

Post 107 - you state that people are retiring because "retirement savings and home recovered"

Post 165 - When challenged, you cite that the "S&P soaring from 1335 (2007) to 805 (2009), and that "new home sales" went from 900K to 300K in the same period. This, of course, is completely contradictory to the previous statement for which you were challenged.

Post 243 - When the anomaly of thought was pointed out, you drug out a chart and claim that the S&P hit "pre-recession" highs in 2014.

Of course, you failed to note that had almost nothing to do with the average retiree. While the S&P is a nice economic indicator, it has almost nothing to do the income of today's retiree. You also fail to account for the lost income during the down years, instead trying to gloss over the impact to today's seniors.

Even more egregious, you try to somehow correlate the increase in income for investors to people living on Social Security and corporate pensions, both of which are massively underfunded. Not only that, but you conveniently ignore the meteoric rise in health care costs (as a direct result of liberal policies). It is not an accident that the variations in energy, health care, and food are NOT considered in the CPI (it's done to paint a false picture so politicians can get re-elected).

Don't believe it? I suggest you go to the nearest Walmart, or McDonalds, or Taco Bell, and see how many senior citizens are still working to supplement (not offset) their retirement nest eggs. They aren't working just to have something to do - they are working to keep from starving to death, while liberals like you try to gloss over the reality.


----------



## Spare_change

JoeB131 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take. For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop. There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably won't be any convictions under Trump, either. The reason why you stupids are being fooled is because the 1% WANT illegal labor. But they know they have to keep you bigots happy by pretending to go through the motions of chasing the brown ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how when foreigners break our laws the lib douche bags want to put Americans in jail rather than the foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how when the rich take advantage of the poor to get richer, the republicans punish the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got any idea just exactly how stupid that sounds??
> 
> You might want to shine a little reality on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is they come here because the rich hire them.  No jobs, no immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another post that's been conveniently ignored so whackos can continue to frame and spin their fabricated bullshit. (See below)
> "Come on bud...SERIOUSLY?
> This debate has been had way too many times. I'll make it short...PLEASE explain the numbers to me. The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week while Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country?
> How many piece of shit junker autos do you think they buy, how many bottles of Tapatio or cans of Bud Light? Payroll taxes? They pay a zero percent effective tax rate and don't tell me that many use a bogus tax id to pay taxes yet never collect the return...that's absolute bullshit and just another fabricated Liberal myth...those types claim 99 dependents and essentially exempt themselves from withholding."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. The Cleaners called.  They said that they were able to get the soot stains out of your white sheets but the part where the cross burned the sleeve, they couldn't do anything about.
Click to expand...

When lacking an intelligent response, use the race card.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?"
> 
> Oh we'll get them as well. Right now our primary concern is the lowest grade filth of illegals...you know, the ones who don't have the iQ or cash to come over on a visa...you know, all your buddies from Mexico, Central and South America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
Click to expand...


Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.

I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
Click to expand...




charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?

Nahh --- I didn't think so.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy now buddy....no need for hostility. Remember "the code" of TOLERANCE.
> To show that I am tolerant I am still willing to help you with your extreme level of illiteracy and retarded use of the English language by sending you a valid copy of Rosetta Stone. I'm really starting to feel sorry for you as you continue to make a total ass of yourself here. Please accept my gracious offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
> 
> THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
> 
> On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
Click to expand...


Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.

If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!

Grow up.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... I don't know shit. My years as a business owner and CEO mean nothing ... clearly, I don't have a clue.
> 
> Why don't you tell us your expertise, and your experience, as a businessman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right..... Suddenly you are business owner. Bullshit.............. And what is business has to do with your twisted opinion? Desperation time........ I know lots of business owners that are stupid like you but smart enough not to get involved in this kind of conversation. You are just lightweight.
> 
> I'm in the business of medical instruments and consumable including reagents and blood products for the last 18 years and my parents before that. Located in San Diego and Miami.
Click to expand...




charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is easier, keeping out some ignorant peasants, or keeping out some well trained armies bent on conquest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... I don't know shit. My years as a business owner and CEO mean nothing ... clearly, I don't have a clue.
> 
> Why don't you tell us your expertise, and your experience, as a businessman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right..... Suddenly you are business owner. Bullshit.............. And what is business has to do with your twisted opinion? Desperation time........ I know lots of business owners that are stupid like you but smart enough not to get involved in this kind of conversation. You are just lightweight.
> 
> I'm in the business of medical instruments and consumable including reagents and blood products for the last 18 years and my parents before that. Located in San Diego and Miami.
Click to expand...


Being the security guard at your company does not automatically qualify you as a business genius.


----------



## P@triot

meaner gene said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're also completely illiterate. *Only proper nouns should be capitalized snowflake.* Shouldn't you be on your way to the welfare office right about now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mInd if* I* disagree?
Click to expand...

I is always capitalized - as is the beginning of every sentence. I didn't realize I needed to point that out. But considering the astounding illiteracy of the left-wingers on this board, I'm not surprised.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
Click to expand...




Again you ignorant bozo they had to pay $17 bucks an hour because the unemployment was zero.. Who ever wanted a high paying job in the fracking industry was working there.. 

Supply and demand... 



Damn you are stupid... 



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again no American wants to work for $4.00 an hour kick 20 million illegals out and they would have to raise wages,  hell I would pick apples for $25 bucks an hour,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
Click to expand...




*Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*

Philip Wegmann
3 years ago
_






Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.

The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.


://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/




.


_


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _
Click to expand...




Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
Will go up...


*McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*


In one North Dakota town, prospective McDonald’s employees are netting a nice paycheck before they ever have to ask a customer if they want fries with that.

McDonald’s workers are netting $300 bonuses just to sign on to work at the eatery in Dickinson, North Dakota, _Businessweek_ reports. That’s just one sign of a state currently reaping the benefits of an oil boom, sending the jobless rate plunging to 3.4 percent and engendering fierce competition among employers to find workers.

It’s not uncommon for signing bonuses to proliferate during boom times. In the late 1990s Burger King offered managers a $5,000 signing bonus in a variety of cities to try to poach them from other fast food chains, according to a 1998 _New York Times_ report. In Dallas, the school board tried to lure teachers with $1,500 signing bonuses during the same period of worker scarcity.

In North Dakota, the prospect of huge salaries is pushing prospective workers to change their lifestyles in a variety of ways. At Williston Sate College in Williston, North Dakota, students are dropping out, lured by the possibility of making $100,000 working on oil rigs, driving trucks or maintaining oil wells, according to CNNMoney.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think we have a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border yet?
> 
> This is just outside of Campo, California - snowflake. How stupid do you look right now?
> 
> View attachment 118877
Click to expand...

I look far brighter than the idiots who  see a fence and think it's a wall. A monkey or dog might not know the difference but I would expect a1st class primate to possess the mental acuity to know the difference. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "dim ass"?
Click to expand...

It's an ass attached to a dimwit.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think we have a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border yet?
> 
> This is just outside of Campo, California - snowflake. How stupid do you look right now?
> 
> View attachment 118877
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I look far brighter than the idiots who  see a fence and think it's a wall. A monkey or dog might not know the difference but I would expect a1st class primate to possess the mental acuity to know the difference. I guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...

For the love of God....left-wing dimwits can't even discern now between a fence and a wall. Snowflake - a wall is a solid structure (like the wall shown in the picture near Campo, CA.), while a fence you can see through (like chain link fences, etc.). The fact that you people need a freaking definition for shit this basic really illustrates why concepts such as even basic economics and basic biology confused the hell out of you people. 

"The difference between a fence and a wall is that you can almost always see through a fence, at least to some degree, while a wall is solid"

fence - Dictionary Definition


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "dim ass"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's an ass attached to a dimwit.
Click to expand...

Actually snowflake...it would be an ass that isn't that well lit.


----------



## P@triot

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> 
> In one North Dakota town, prospective McDonald’s employees are netting a nice paycheck before they ever have to ask a customer if they want fries with that.
> 
> McDonald’s workers are netting $300 bonuses just to sign on to work at the eatery in Dickinson, North Dakota, _Businessweek_ reports. That’s just one sign of a state currently reaping the benefits of an oil boom, sending the jobless rate plunging to 3.4 percent and engendering fierce competition among employers to find workers.
> 
> It’s not uncommon for signing bonuses to proliferate during boom times. In the late 1990s Burger King offered managers a $5,000 signing bonus in a variety of cities to try to poach them from other fast food chains, according to a 1998 _New York Times_ report. In Dallas, the school board tried to lure teachers with $1,500 signing bonuses during the same period of worker scarcity.
> 
> In North Dakota, the prospect of huge salaries is pushing prospective workers to change their lifestyles in a variety of ways. At Williston Sate College in Williston, North Dakota, students are dropping out, lured by the possibility of making $100,000 working on oil rigs, driving trucks or maintaining oil wells, according to CNNMoney.
Click to expand...

Amen! And one of the reasons for the phenomenal economic boom in North Dakota is because they are fracking around the clock up there - producing clean, safe, affordable energy. They can't find enough people to build houses and work at McDonald's. They are paying truck drivers over $100,000 per year there.

Meanwhile, people are leaving New York, New Jersey, and California because left-wing policy has left them with no jobs and no money.


----------



## ptbw forever

P@triot said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude ------ You need apologize before I give any kind of response.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy....the snowflake foreigner wants an apology before he continues. Maybe this isn't a "he". Charwin is ultra-sensitive like a woman.
Click to expand...

Nah, he is just a softy like Charmin.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
Click to expand...

You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.


----------



## bripat9643

IcebergSlim said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you Boldly Assert, Bri.......but your Bold Assertions have no currency.
Click to expand...


It has been proven time and time again.  What especially makes it true is that douche bags like you do everything possible to keep the one already here from being deported.  If they never get through the door, then we don't have to listen to your sob stories about how deporting them is cruel and we shouldn't break up families.

You are proposing a solution that snowflakes like you are constantly attacking.


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
Click to expand...


Yes it is, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

IcebergSlim said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass
> 
> _
> How is it "on the books"?
Click to expand...


Congress passed legislation to build the wall and even partially funded it, but a series of Open-Borders administration only did a half-assed attempt at actually building one.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> 
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If nobody would hire them they would not come....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tear down the wall
> 
> Lock up a single CEO and watch the jobs disappear overnight
> 10 million people will be moving in the opposite direction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"
> Build the wall and defend it like the Pentagon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is the bigger criminal?
> The business owner who makes profit off of low wage illegal workers or some Mexican trying to feed his family?
> 
> Who is more likely to be arrested?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make?  We know that the immigration laws are never going to be enforced by Democrats running these sanctuary cities.   They are the biggest criminals.  The surest way to make sure illegals don't enter the country is to keep them out in the first place.
> 
> No one gives a fuck about your hatred of employers.
Click to expand...

only because capitalism never makes sense to the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome how you loons are all for slave labor...haha
> How many times does this have to be revisited before you whackos can understand it? *Illegal immigrants* from Mexico, Central and South America do not yield a net gain for the US...they cost billions on top of billions and your are plain fucking crazy or a beaner yourself if you believe otherwise. They are dead weight and leave nothing but filth behind.
> Long before wetbacks American's were working the low iQ jobs. Kids worked on farms, washed dishes and flipped burgers. The Libtard spin is that kids aren't willing to work these jobs...but that's total bullshit. Wetbacks have made these jobs careers, and offered BJ's at the end of shifts all for shit wages...they take what they can get as they're fully aware they can't qualify to work anything requiring iQ and communication skills. They've essentially ran the kids out of these jobs. Wetbacks offer the new age slave labor. If wetbacks didn't exist companies would have to pay whatever wage necessary to encourage real American's to work X jobs and then pass the cost on to the end user...simple economics. If end users aren't willing to pay X amount then X product or service goes away...again, simple economics.
> See how easy this is? Keep your head out of your ass and enjoy being truly enlightened. You're welcome.
> P.S.- What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been robbing American taxpayers?
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
Click to expand...

Home Depot is in Mexico now; should we ask that they, "buy American ladders"?


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey,dim ass, you don't see ladders because the wall has not been built yet. Did you fall asleep at the keyboard and all of a sudden wake up and start typing?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think we have a wall along the U.S. - Mexican border yet?
> 
> This is just outside of Campo, California - snowflake. How stupid do you look right now?
> 
> View attachment 118877
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I look far brighter than the idiots who  see a fence and think it's a wall. A monkey or dog might not know the difference but I would expect a1st class primate to possess the mental acuity to know the difference. I guess I was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the love of God....left-wing dimwits can't even discern now between a fence and a wall. Snowflake - a wall is a solid structure (like the wall shown in the picture near Campo, CA.), while a fence you can see through (like chain link fences, etc.). The fact that you people need a freaking definition for shit this basic really illustrates why concepts such as even basic economics and basic biology confused the hell out of you people.
> 
> "The difference between a fence and a wall is that you can almost always see through a fence, at least to some degree, while a wall is solid"
> 
> fence - Dictionary Definition
Click to expand...


Home Depot advertises this opaque linear structure as a fence.


----------



## danielpalos

charwin95 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they should be renewable annually.  why are we not making money on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Renewable means they can come back and forth legally as a tourist but lots of them came in for just one purpose........ seek better opportunity.
> Actually some tourist do post bond and a round trip tickets which we make money but most just take that as a lost in exchange of hiding..... then try to find a white boy to marry.
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances and location.  The right wing claims all illegals are from Mexico.  Not all Mexicans want to stay here, if they can make money and "set up shop" over there.


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As always Bri you are missing something.
> 1. How in the world this biased media came up with $148B? Trump said $113B, ABC estimate at $100B.
> 
> 2. To all Trump supporters. LISTEN CAREFULLY............ Whatever the cost $148B or $100B ................ those cost are inside this  country. It is NOT the cost of illegal immigrants coming in.
> So if the stupid wall is built........ It doesn't matter the cost $100B is not going away. Got it?
> 
> Building a wall  VS  costing tax payers to support illegals are 2 separate entities.
> Meaning the link you provided coming from a biased media is worthless and dumb to make that kind of justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twisted logic to make you feel better?
> 
> Today, 11 million illegal aliens cost us $143 B (or whatever number you want to use) --- tomorrow, 22 million illegal aliens cost us $280 B (or twice your fictitious number) .... no wall, the onslaught doesn't stop, and the costs just get higher and higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exaggerating your fictitious dishonest numbers way too high.
> 
> 1. Are you telling me that by building a wall....Will eliminate the $143? I don't think so.
> 2  Without the wall........  by next year or 5 years the number of illegals will double from 12+ to 24 millions? Really?
> 3. Without the wall Trump will do a lousy job in controlling our borders? Despite the additional 5k BP?
> 
> About 8 out 10 Americans believe US will pay for the wall and about 60% oppose building the wall.
> How about illegals that violated their visas? That are also taking advantage of the welfare. How are you going to stop that? A net?
> 
> UNBELIEVABLE! 480,000 Illegals Overstayed Visas Last Year ⋆ Freedom Daily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I can see logic isn't your strong suit ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You rebuttal stinks ..........
> What I did old you are facts and reality. No bs. I asked you a very simple questions but you deflected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didn't deflect ... you failed to comprehend.
> 
> If you don't stop the influx of illegal aliens, we will continue to collect: 1) uneducated base laborers, and 2) additions supported by the US safety net.
> 
> The numbers used were theoretical - I think you can realistically expect the invasion curve to steepen. What makes you think that allowing more illegals into the country will somehow soften the per capita cost of supporting them? Are we suddenly going to have a flood of PhD's across the border?
> 
> Your inability to look at the problem diametrically has caused you to distort reality - or, you've drank too much kool-aid and need to run to the bathroom and relieve yourself ... cuz you sure ain't thinking clearly.
Click to expand...

capitalism is simply, much more effective at solving our problem than socialism on a national basis. 

now you know what the real problem is.


----------



## danielpalos

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> Find the largest agricultural concern in the country and lock up their CEO for a week for hiring illegals
> 
> Jobs will disappear immediately
> 
> No need for a wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's far easier to build a wall.  You open-borders douche bags sure are fond of solution that are virtually impossible to implement and that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it easier to build a 2000 mile wall you impertinent little toad? All it would take is several well publicized convictions of employers of illegals accompanied by long prison  sentences. All for a third of the cost to buy one fighter jet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're naive if you think that's all it would take.  For one thing, the minute some Open Borders douche bag got in office, the raids would stop.  There weren't any convictions under either Obama or Bush.
> 
> For another, how would that stop women coming over with their anchor babies?
> 
> Dims will do and say anything to keep the wall from being built.  That's how we know it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama deported more illegals than any other president. In case you didn't know, that is what we do with  illegals who have broken no laws other than immigration laws. But  here is what the law  indicates  shouold happen to the criminals who hire aid and abet illegal immigrants:
> 
> View attachment 118757
> 
> View attachment 118759
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens
Click to expand...

Freedom of association and Contract is the law of the land.

Immigration is Only a federal problem since 1808.  The several States no longer have jurisdiction over immigration into the Union.

Immigration into a State or the Union has never been an individual concern.


----------



## danielpalos

JQPublic1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think your anger is misplaced. Rather than shouting at your monitor why not type a letter to your congressman and insist that  the hiring of illegals be made a felony. Don't blame poorf people for  coming here to make a better life for themselves blame the traitors who hire them.
> 
> 
> 
> If we go to the source of illegal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"If we go to the source of illegal immigration"*
> Well technically isn't the source or origination point Mexico and the border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No,  monetary *incentive *is  the source of illegal immigration.  Stories of how eager American employers are eager to hire and pay spreads like wildfire throughout Latin America. The source is also the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our exorbitantly expensive drug war in Latin America does not help the situation, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our drug war..ini Latin America? Are you saying some of the posters here are confusing illegal immigrants with refugees caused by our exploits in Latin America?...Please go on...expound.
Click to expand...

"mass migrations" happen for a reason.


----------



## danielpalos

JQPublic1 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply being full of fallacy, really is inferior.
> 
> We could be generating revenue with a market friendly visa that expires annually.
> 
> It is about capitalism versus socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Why be for more, regulation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Danny....stop the babble and properly engage in the discussion...I don't like watching you being ignored.
> Why put foreigners to work here when we can make use of our own desperate bottom feeders?
> 
> "*Rather than work so hard to come up with clever ways to keep the Mexican filth rolling in why not figure out ways to get our resident filth off the couch, away from the weed and 40oz of King Cobra and out working?
> Let's demand that our able bodied welfare recipients pick strawberries and pour concrete in order to keep those EBT cards rolling in?
> The win is two fold....Government could offer subsidized labor to employers such as farmers and construction companies while teaching our bottom feeding piece of shits to work and be accountable.....Whatta you say?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> why "throw capitalism under the buss" merely for the inferiority of your national socialist point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're ducking and dodging and making no sense in your babble.
> Answer my questions. Don't be scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy.  with Capitalism, we could be generating revenue to help potentially, lower our tax burden.
> 
> all you have is more socialism on a national basis, my goode comrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the sense in lowering the tax burden for those making more than $250,000 per year while, simultaneously building walls, reducing the work force,
> raising interest rates and increasing spending on defense.
Click to expand...

Increasing the Debt, so the right wing can have something more to complain about?


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the numbers have no basis in reality, why consider them at all.
> 
> And a conservative think tank recently admitted that illegal immigration is a NET GAIN for the US economy so, conservatives really haven't thought this through very well, at all, but then that's what they always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, a "net gain" for the abstraction called "the economy" is meaningless.   What counts is whether it benefits native born American workers, and any way you look at it it doesn't.
Click to expand...

The rich are getting richer faster and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most proud Americans i hated the idea of illegals coming here to "take our jobs." However, the more I  looked at  the work they do and the impact of mass deportation, I realized just how important most of them are to  the health of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> undocumented workers make up around 67% of farm laborers. Their low salaries keep prices of crops and vegetables down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The National Milk Producer's Federation forecasted a 61% increase in the cost of milk if their low cost labor pool dried up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They contributed close to 300 billion in payroll tax to the Social Security trust Fund.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the perspective of any notable economist, the undocumented worker is helping to maintain our way of life more than they are hindering it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
Click to expand...

I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
Click to expand...

".... enforce existing laws ..."

Does that apply to ALL laws, or just to the ones you like?


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Home Depot advertises this opaque linear structure as a fence.


Maybe you should stop getting all of your information from Home Depot. Funny how you despise, reject, and ignore those "evil" corporations until you can lean on them for something absurd after you've embarrassed yourself.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws.


*Agree 100%*. And who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government. And which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats.


JQPublic1 said:


> I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.


Exactly what the American people have been saying for a decade now. But unfortunately your side of the aisle refuses to enforce the law.


JQPublic1 said:


> sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.


Pure bullshit as proven above. Sanctuary cities are established by Democrats in government - *not* by corporations.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Home Depot advertises this opaque linear structure as a fence.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should stop getting all of your information from Home Depot. Funny how you despise, reject, and ignore those "evil" corporations until you can lean on them for something absurd after you've embarrassed yourself.
Click to expand...

So...you are denying the the picture of the wooden fence I posted above shows a fence? If you aren't embarrassed by now you are just plain dumb.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".... enforce existing laws ..."
> 
> Does that apply to ALL laws, or just to the ones you like?
Click to expand...

All laws should be enforced by the agencies responsible for enforcing laws within their purview.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Agree 100%*. And who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government. And which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats..
Click to expand...

Wrong! Sanctuary enclaves can be found in many red states too. Not only do these states have Sanctuary Cities,some have Sanctuary counties too.
Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States



JQPublic1 said:


> I didn't write those laws  but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.





> Exactly what the American people have been saying for a decade now. But unfortunately your side of the aisle refuses to enforce the law.


It would appear that both sides are complicit in tolerating Sanctuary Enclaves within their respective jurisdictions.
Not all Democrats subscribe to Sanctuary policies and some Repub-lie-cons do.


JQPublic1 said:


> sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.





> Pure bullshit as proven above. Sanctuary cities are established by Democrats in government - *not* by corporations.


You might want to rethink that. Some corporations violate immigration laws with impunity to save labor costs. Corporate farms are probably the biggest violators. But lobbying and other legal corruption devices keeps cops at all levels at bay.... It's going to be interesting to see if Trump can put an end to this bipartisan culture of corruption.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> So...you are denying the the picture of the wooden fence I posted above shows a fence? If you aren't embarrassed by now you are just plain dumb.


So your source of information in life is what Home Depot (and I quote) "advertises"? 

Son - I posted the official definitions. You got _owned_. Be a big boy now and deal with it.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Agree 100%*. And who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government. And which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Sanctuary enclaves can be found in many red states too. Not only do these states have Sanctuary Cities,some have Sanctuary counties too.
> Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States
Click to expand...

Oh you poor, poor little nitwit. What you call "red states" have "blue" cities in them, you twit. Ohio is a red state right now, but Cleveland is solid blue. Michigan is a red state right now, but Detroit is solid blue.

How dumb does one have to be to believe that if a state is "red", *100%* of the population and cities in that state are Republican?!? 

So I'll ask again stupid - who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government! Am doing which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats!


----------



## BrokeLoser

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> In other words, like a good little left-winger, you want to exploit labor for your own benefit. You people loved slavery in the 1700's and the 1800's and you sick fucks _still_ love it to this day.
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> Well shit....if that's not a reason to _violate_ *federal* *law*...I don't know what is. Idiot.
> From the perspective of a decent American with common sense, you're an absolute fucking tool - advocating for felonious criminal activity simply out of your desperation to win elections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
Click to expand...


(Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
"*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
Click to expand...


Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. 
If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
> 
> Nahh --- I didn't think so.
Click to expand...


Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates. 
This alone is just your pure delusional.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far this is all what you got insult. Dumb fuck. I will let you know when you are qualified to talk to me. SCUMBAG. Fuck you asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
> 
> THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
> 
> On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
> 
> If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
> 
> Grow up.
Click to expand...


Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else. 
That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Agree 100%*. And who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government. And which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Sanctuary enclaves can be found in many red states too. Not only do these states have Sanctuary Cities,some have Sanctuary counties too.
> Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't write those laws  but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what the American people have been saying for a decade now. But unfortunately your side of the aisle refuses to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would appear that both sides are complicit in tolerating Sanctuary Enclaves within their respective jurisdictions.
> Not all Democrats subscribe to Sanctuary policies and some Repub-lie-cons do.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit as proven above. Sanctuary cities are established by Democrats in government - *not* by corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might want to rethink that. Some corporations violate immigration laws with impunity to save labor costs. Corporate farms are probably the biggest violators. But lobbying and other legal corruption devices keeps cops at all levels at bay.... It's going to be interesting to see if Trump can put an end to this bipartisan culture of corruption.
Click to expand...



LMFAO your stupid map points to Atlanta? A  city that I think never had a republican mayor?




.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...you are denying the the picture of the wooden fence I posted above shows a fence? If you aren't embarrassed by now you are just plain dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> So your source of information in life is what Home Depot (and I quote) "advertises"?
> 
> Son - I posted the official definitions. You got _owned_. Be a big boy now and deal with it.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't answer my question about how you would define the wooden fence in the picture I posted.. You can't see through it and it looks amazingly similar to the border fence you posted earlier.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... I don't know shit. My years as a business owner and CEO mean nothing ... clearly, I don't have a clue.
> 
> Why don't you tell us your expertise, and your experience, as a businessman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right..... Suddenly you are business owner. Bullshit.............. And what is business has to do with your twisted opinion? Desperation time........ I know lots of business owners that are stupid like you but smart enough not to get involved in this kind of conversation. You are just lightweight.
> 
> I'm in the business of medical instruments and consumable including reagents and blood products for the last 18 years and my parents before that. Located in San Diego and Miami.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the point comrade, there is a *demand* for those ignorant peasants and they will keep coming as long as somebody is willing to hire them. A wall isn't going to stop them since they can simply bring shovels or ladders with them to the promised land (and it's a lot easier for a few immigrants to sneak in under the cover of darkness than it would be for an entire army)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's false ... but, hey, if it helps sell your idea, go ahead and tell it.
> 
> It actually works like this ... an employer has a job available. He wants to pay the minimum labor costs so that his product is more competitive. If there are people who will do it for $1 an hour, he will hire them. If there aren't, and all he can find is people who demand $10 an hour, he will hire those.
> 
> The truth is much simpler ... YOU are the problem. You're unwilling to pay a price for your lettuce that will support a viable living wage for the field worker. YOU are unwilling to pay a meaningful price for your hamburger that will support the cook. YOU are the problem. The employer is trying to give you what you demand ... cheap food and goods.
> 
> I especially enjoy the way you demean them by calling them "ignorant peasants". Does that make you feel superior, or something?
> 
> But, of course, we know they are only doing jobs that Americans won't do, right? (I mean --- that's what you leftists say all the time, right?)
> 
> Except that isn't true ....
> 
> *THE MAJORITY OF ILLEGAL WORKERS HOLD SERVICE, CONSTRUCTION, AND MANUFACTURING JOBS*
> 
> *When people claim that these workers are taking jobs that Americans won't do, they ignore these statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009 averages):*
> 
> *77.7 percent of the 7.75 million workers in food preparation and serving jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers). It is harder to get a job at McDonalds than it is to get into Harvard.*
> *65.8 percent of 5.38 million workers in cleaning and maintenance jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *74.5 percent of the 7.45 million workers in construction and extraction jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *75.9 percent of the 7.63 million workers in production jobs are native-born workers (does not include legal immigrant workers)*
> *It is clear then, that these ARE jobs that Americans will do, if paid a fair wage.
> 
> Jobs Americans Won't Do?
> *
> So, we now know that myth isn't true, don't we?
> 
> The truth is much, much simpler ... these "ignorant peasants" (as you so blithely call them) will keep coming as long as the social safety net of the US provides them a better life than they have in their home country. They know that, no matter what happens, they will have food and a place to live. They know that they will not only survive on the US safety net, but they will be able to send money back to their families.
> 
> In an effort to create a voting base, the Democrat party, and its socialist counterparts, have created a mess that is getting too expensive to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's dumb. This just shows that you don't know shit and just pure ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right ... I don't know shit. My years as a business owner and CEO mean nothing ... clearly, I don't have a clue.
> 
> Why don't you tell us your expertise, and your experience, as a businessman?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right..... Suddenly you are business owner. Bullshit.............. And what is business has to do with your twisted opinion? Desperation time........ I know lots of business owners that are stupid like you but smart enough not to get involved in this kind of conversation. You are just lightweight.
> 
> I'm in the business of medical instruments and consumable including reagents and blood products for the last 18 years and my parents before that. Located in San Diego and Miami.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being the security guard at your company does not automatically qualify you as a business genius.
Click to expand...


And this your best rebuttal? Ask me if I give a flying fuck if you believe me or not. Jealous? Dude You  cannot even tell me where you live or what you do for a living. 
For the record I challenged total of 3 members to visit my company and buildings in Sand Diego or  Miami at my expense--------- but no takers.
And live debate total 4 members but no takers. 
Total of 3 of members to tour immigration center in Arizona or Texas at my expense ---- no takers either.  
Do you want me to challenge you?


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never heard of $4. An hour. Even illegals will not take that kind of starvation wages. Even Trump will tell you no Americans are willing to work for $10.20
> And if you charge $25/hour how much do you think those apples cost?
> I know you told me how tough you are but------  how many Americans are willing to work in that kind of tough environment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> I]_
Click to expand...

_

For your post #363 & 364. 

You are totally lost in the jungle dude. Big time. This just show how a ignorant you are.
Tell me what is so hard working at McDonald's or Walmart inside an air conditioned building compared to working at  ------- convalescence home, home care, agricultural farm at 100+° , slaughter house etc etc etc? Tell me. 

On top of that you did not even answer every single questions I asked you. 

_


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws.
> 
> 
> 
> *Agree 100%*. And who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government. And which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! Sanctuary enclaves can be found in many red states too. Not only do these states have Sanctuary Cities,some have Sanctuary counties too.
> Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh you poor, poor little nitwit. What you call "red states" have "blue" cities in them, you twit. Ohio is a red state right now, but Cleveland is solid blue. Michigan is a red state right now, but Detroit is solid blue.
> 
> How dumb does one have to be to believe that if a state is "red", *100%* of the population and cities in that state are Republican?!?
> 
> So I'll ask again stupid - who is tasked with enforcing the law? The government! Am doing which side of the aisle refuses to do that? The Dumbocrats!
Click to expand...

I can't help an idiot like you who cannot think beyond his nose. Governors of red states could certainly influence the cities and counties under their jurisdictions. Distributions of federal funding generally goes through the state which then distributes said funds to counties and cities.
Don't pretend Repub-lie-con governors don't give Sanctuary entities under their jurisdictions a pass. Often, Republican interests are enhanced by cheap alien labor and you know it.


----------



## JQPublic1

BrokeLoser said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down fella. That post you just responded to wasn't to advocate violations of federal immigration laws  I was just putting some facts on the table for both sides to consider. I just think it is wise to study the economic consequences of getting rid of undocumented workers, don't YOU? If that is idiotic, I raise my hand. But  for me, idiocy is shown by those who jump right into something without thinking it through. BTW, ifyou read the last few posts I submitted on the matter, you will see  some of the far cheaper remedies I proposed to preclude building a multi billion dollar wall , the cost of which could reach more than 40 billion, depending on the  dimensions..
> 
> Bottom lined? I proposed enforcing the laws already on the books whereas those criminals  who hire, harbor or aid and abet illegals be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am not advocating felonious activity, I am for going after the people who hire illegals...aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
Click to expand...

Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.


----------



## KissMy

JQPublic1 said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
Click to expand...


The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
> If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
Click to expand...

"Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "

Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.

Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.  
How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises? 
2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?  
In short your just fucked up the economy.

Anything else tough guy?


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> 
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
Click to expand...

I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not easy to build the wall Bri. Look at the  enormous cost and the logistics to build the wall. And we do not have an open borders that you keep plugging in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is, dumbass.
Click to expand...


How did you know that? 
You may want to read the link. It cost $1 billion for 62 miles but that's the easy sections of the border, witch is accessible for heavy equipment and roads. Do you think prices of those wall are  the same as those in mountainous terrains? Do your math at $1billion for 62 miles ----- 2,000 miles. 

Trump border wall ask: $1B for 62 miles


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
> If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
> 
> Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
Click to expand...


Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion doesn't mean a diddly shit of credibility coming from a racist piece of shit like you.
> Didn't I told you to FUCK OFF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a concise, mature, and succinct post like this CERTAINLY forwards your position ..... NOT!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the fuck you are telling me that?  Why don't you tell this red neck inbred fucking asshole to grow the fuck up and stop insulting me in the first place?
> His been doing these to me for a while.
> 
> I was trying to talk to decently. Now do you want to talk to you trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
Click to expand...


You little hypocrite. You have people insulting me here and you have Bear calling me names -------Did you blasted them for me? 

I was talking to you like adults...... Didn't I Asshole?


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
Click to expand...

You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But, Mommy, he did it FIRST!"
> 
> Really mature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
> If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
> 
> Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
Click to expand...

You mean you don't see the problem with your English?

Really?


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
Click to expand...

That ain't enough if they are paying illegals $10k less than native citizens every year. The fine needs to be $50k. Or let illegals pay $50k each to remain in country.


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why the fuck you want to get involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
> If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
> 
> Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don't see the problem with your English?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you. 
Keep trying you might piss me off.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> $20 billion is a drop in the bucket when you look at the size of the federal budget.  The government spends more than that on office supplies.  Building a 2000 mile wall would be easier than building a 2000 mile highway the same distance, and we already have Interstate 10 almost parallel to the wall.
> 
> The claim that the wall is too expensive or too hard build is just plain bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
> 
> Nahh --- I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
> This alone is just your pure delusional.
Click to expand...

English your second language?

You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling. 

In short, you said it ... now, prove it.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of class here, folks ... bring the kids on by and let them see how adults address the critical issues of the day!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
> 
> THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
> 
> On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
> 
> If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
> That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
Click to expand...


Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?

No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> 
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The road which is also thousand of miles, heavy equipments, housing for workers, water/electric, purchase of private lands etc etc are not even included. It cost more than $20 billions. Bri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
> 
> Nahh --- I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
> This alone is just your pure delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> English your second language?
> 
> You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.
> 
> In short, you said it ... now, prove it.
Click to expand...


Your ass is backward. There's not even a contractor assigned in this projects and design has not even completed. Let alone cost of roads, heavy equipments and other associated cost. None. 

You have to prove why you think they are included. Not me.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about fuck head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
> 
> THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
> 
> On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
> 
> If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
> That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
Click to expand...


I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> 
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Click to expand...


Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do. 
Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all normally included in the construction contract ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
> 
> Nahh --- I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
> This alone is just your pure delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> English your second language?
> 
> You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.
> 
> In short, you said it ... now, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ass is backward. There's not even a contractor assigned in this projects and design has not even completed. Let alone cost of roads, heavy equipments and other associated cost. None.
> 
> You have to prove why you think they are included. Not me.
Click to expand...


So ... you're admitting that when you said they WEREN'T included in the estimate, you really didn't know, did you? And, now, you don't have any way to validate your claim.

And you want to push it off on me?


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about your childish, immature, and sophomoric insistence on resorting to foul language and personal attacks when pressed to validate your ridiculous posts. Somehow, you seem to be under the assumption that we are supposed to genuflect to the obvious truth simply because you said it. You offer generalities and banalities without supportable evidence, and then get all pissy when someone dares to challenge your dictums from on high.
> 
> THAT's what the fuck I'm talking about ... if you can't keep up, order the Cliff Notes version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
> 
> On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
> 
> If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
> That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
Click to expand...


Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.

Twit? Seriously?


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
> Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
Click to expand...


Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that  suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.

All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Posted for the third time in this thread...make any sense yet?...see below)
> "*Agreed. The crime of hiring illegals should be aggressively enforced. However, big cities with the populous of illegals have already made it clear that they love their illegals and will not criminalize them...with that said should we believe city officials would demand criminalization of employers? That would be awfully naive of us...no?"*
> 
> 
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
Click to expand...

The person  I was responding too said this: "How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?" Do you see the word "enforce" in that sentence? Please read and understand the conversation before you jump in and make a fool of yourself!


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,that's a damn good question. I thought I answered it earlier but I don't mind doing it again.IMHO the impetus on enforcement of immigration law should have began with employers.Had that occurred initially we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all. Retrospect has little value now but I believe even now that refocusing on employers, using the I-9 form as a guide, the illegals would be forced to leave voluntarily.
> Crime could increase in border states but at least we will have a handle on illegal migrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The person  I was responding too said this: "How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?" Do you see the word "enforce" in that sentence? Please read and understand the conversation before you jump in and make a fool of yourself!
Click to expand...


What?

Your whole presentation has been to bitch about local law enforcement having to "enforce federal immigration law".
*
"You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators."

" Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce?"

"If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE."*

Your whole discussion demonstrates your lack of understanding of the role of local law enforcement in the immigration law scenario.

Go do your homework.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
> Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that  suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
> 
> All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
Click to expand...

 Yes he does, and so do I . It is you who is severely lacking in knowledge pertaining to the complex dynamics of  immigration law enforcement. Read and learn:

 Just so let you know, this Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.

The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant to make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.

Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.

_Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s._


So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?  Banning isn't an option, so they want to cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that  Re pub-Lie-cons deem uncooperative.

_Senate Democrats have, in the past, temporarily blocked measures that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. *The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.*_


Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric


*Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about.** A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.*

The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’

I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding  local law enforcement agencies ofwhat they call "Sanctuary Cities."


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The person  I was responding too said this: "How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?" Do you see the word "enforce" in that sentence? Please read and understand the conversation before you jump in and make a fool of yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Your whole presentation has been to bitch about local law enforcement having to "enforce federal immigration law".
> *
> "You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators."
> 
> " Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce?"
> 
> "If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE."*
> 
> Your whole discussion demonstrates your lack of understanding of the role of local law enforcement in the immigration law scenario.
> 
> Go do your homework.
Click to expand...

 You and your Repub-LIE-COn buddies  ought to go after  the employers. Why do you insist on giving them a free pass? Are you afraid of ensnaring too many  of your "good ol' boys in an illegal immigration hiring dragnet? Every time I bring it up the topic you maggots divert to Sanctuary cities. Trump has never mentioned going after the employers who are,  collectively the core , of our illegal immigrant problem.

BTW: see post #426...you might learn something!


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
> Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that  suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
> 
> All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he does, and so do I . It is you who is severely lacking in knowledge pertaining to the complex dynamics of  immigration law enforcement. Read and learn:
> 
> Just so let you know, this Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.
> 
> The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant to make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.
> 
> Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.
> 
> _Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s._
> 
> 
> So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?  Banning isn't an option, so they want to cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that  Re pub-Lie-cons deem uncooperative.
> 
> _Senate Democrats have, in the past, temporarily blocked measures that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. *The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.*_
> 
> 
> Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric
> 
> 
> *Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about.** A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.*
> 
> The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’
> 
> I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding  local law enforcement agencies ofwhat they call "Sanctuary Cities."
Click to expand...

Pontification and misdirection - if I wanted an opinion piece, I would have googled one.

You, simply, don't have a clue ... you make a lot of noise and confuse a bunch of words for intelligent input. Sorry, you still don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because little, immature, pissant children like you, incapable of intelligent discussion, but intent to intimidating people through name calling and vulgarity, piss me off. You pollute every discussion with your sophomoric nonsense. You destroy the opportunity for adults to have a meaningful and intelligent discussion.
> 
> I have made it my life's goal to expose the stupidity of your ilk at every turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
> If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
> 
> Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don't see the problem with your English?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
> Keep trying you might piss me off.
Click to expand...


"Rebuttal?"  I was answering your question, dumbass.  Apparently you didn't understand that I was ridiculing your appalling English.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
> Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that  suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
> 
> All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he does, and so do I . It is you who is severely lacking in knowledge pertaining to the complex dynamics of  immigration law enforcement. Read and learn:
> 
> Just so let you know, this Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.
> 
> The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant to make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing Civil war and persecution in their homelands.
> 
> Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.
> 
> _Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s._
> 
> 
> So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it?  Banning isn't an option, so they want to cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that  Re pub-Lie-cons deem uncooperative.
> 
> _Senate Democrats have, in the past, temporarily blocked measures that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. *The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.*_
> 
> 
> Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric
> 
> 
> *Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about.** A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.*
> 
> The Big Problem With The GOP’s Crusade Against ‘Sanctuary Cities’
> 
> I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding  local law enforcement agencies ofwhat they call "Sanctuary Cities."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pontification and misdirection - if I wanted an opinion piece, I would have googled one.
> 
> You, simply, don't have a clue ... you make a lot of noise and confuse a bunch of words for intelligent input. Sorry, you still don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Heh heh heh, It's the other way around. You can't comprehend what I am talking about because your thinking is controlled by your GOP masters. you must PROVE I don't know what i am talking about, sonny. Just saying it  is meaningless. You can't do it,can you?


----------



## danielpalos

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Building the wall is already on the books, dumbass.   Trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid.  Keeping them out in the first place is 10 times cheaper and more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitch "the bitch" McConnell  doesn't agree with you and neither does the Senate.  And only a silly duck like you woud say "trying to resolve the problem after illegals are already in the country is stupid." Duhhhh! So building the wall is going to do what, keep those already here in? Look turd breath, if we are going to have to go out and identify  11 million  illegals, we have to use the I-9 forms  to do it. Anyone who  knowingly hired an illegal needs to face the consequences.
> I am surprised that a konservative like you would advocate employer's violating immigration laws....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're discussing a different issue.  The one we're discussing is how to keep more illegals from entering the country.  How to git rid of the ones we already have is another issue.  Abolishing sanctuary cities would be a big help in that regard, but you don't want to go there.  All you want to do is punish employers.  Your solution is purely a manifestation of your hatred for corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't hate corporations. I just wonder why those employers who knowingly hire illegals aren't subject to existing laws. I didn't write those laws but those laws exist.if we would enforce existing laws calling for the punishment of employers that hire illegals we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.sanctuary cities could not exist because no one would risk hiring illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".... enforce existing laws ..."
> 
> Does that apply to ALL laws, or just to the ones you like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All laws should be enforced by the agencies responsible for enforcing laws within their purview.
Click to expand...

Ok.  10USC311 is also, federal law.  DC v. Heller should be overturned due to a fallacy of composition and that error in Judicial reasoning.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not included in the $20billions estimates. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true ... would you like to prove otherwise?
> 
> Nahh --- I didn't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why me? There are not even any contract written....... Then give me the specific items that are included in the $20B estimates.
> This alone is just your pure delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> English your second language?
> 
> You claimed that roads, support, labor, etc. were not included in the construction estimates.When challenged to provide proof of same, you start backpedaling.
> 
> In short, you said it ... now, prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ass is backward. There's not even a contractor assigned in this projects and design has not even completed. Let alone cost of roads, heavy equipments and other associated cost. None.
> 
> You have to prove why you think they are included. Not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ... you're admitting that when you said they WEREN'T included in the estimate, you really didn't know, did you? And, now, you don't have any way to validate your claim.
> 
> And you want to push it off on me?
Click to expand...


Again. Dude. As always your ass is backwards. 
There are no contractor assigned for this project, no design, no contracts written, no clear written estimates was submitted, private land owners has not been approach for their properties that will separated from their house, some of them will lost income bc of farming. There are no land survey for this project, no firm budget has been allocated even just to start. The $20 billions is just SWAG..... So there are lots of items that are not included in that estimates. And that's a fact. 

Now your Turn to prove----  why you think like roads and equipments are included in the $20 billions.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah...... I don't give a fuck about that piece of shit opinion. I was talking to him directly and I told hm several times not to quote me.......... Then you get yourself involved. So FUCK YOU.
> 
> On top of that he didn't pressed me on anything.  and what challenge did he offer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
> 
> If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
> That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
> 
> Twit? Seriously?
Click to expand...


You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT? 

YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a  twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.  
Keep trying.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) that makes it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not authorized to work in the United States only imposed possible penalties of $110 to $1,100 for each violation. Employers laugh at that chump change.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no trouble with bumping that number to $5000 to $10,000.  How is that going to make these sanctuary cities enforce the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot enforce immigration laws until you identify violators. Do you really want local law enforcement officers putting a higher priority on enforcing federal laws than on those their respective communities pay them to enforce? If city cops, deputies and state police are invested with enforcing federal immigration laws,we do not need ICE.
> Perhaps a national police force would be the answer."shudder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to pervert the truth in order to try to make a fallacious point?
> 
> No one has even remotely suggested that local police prioritize enforcement of the laws. Local police forces are tasked to identify illegal aliens to ICE, and when requested, detain the individual until ICE can take custody. Nothing more - nothing less. Your emotional histrionics about them enforcing federal immigration laws is, simply, an obfuscation designed to elicit an emotional, rather than a logical, reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. It is not their jobs identifying or rounding up illegals just for the sake of ICE. They have better things to do.
> Local police are turning illegals to ICE when they committed heinous crimes. But not for busted tail light, insurance, child support, traffic violations other other minor crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what I said? Nobody claims they are supposed to "round up illegals" - if in the event of their normal course of investigation, they identify that  suspect is an illegal alien, they are supposed to: 1) notify ICE to see if they have an outstanding deportation warrant, and 2) if requested, hold the individual for ICE.
> 
> All your hand waving and pontificating means nothing ---- you apparently don't even understand the relationship dictated by federal law between local law enforcement and ICE.
Click to expand...


I based my opinion on facts and experience not with your ideology or hatred. 
From your #1 above. There are no outstanding warrant on all illegals. Except when they committed crimes---- that's when red flag comes up. Any heinous crimes like drugs, rapes etc etc are turned over to ICE. That I know is happening 100%. 
#2. Local police honor ICE request and most of the time they notify ICE days prior to release of criminals. However they will NOT turn over illegals that committed misdemeanors like child support , expired license, no car seats, etc etc etc.


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional.
> If you don't want to get blasted then don't get involved in a heated argument. Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
> 
> Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don't see the problem with your English?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
> Keep trying you might piss me off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rebuttal?"  I was answering your question, dumbass.  Apparently you didn't understand that I was ridiculing your appalling English.
Click to expand...


And that's is your rebuttal? Grow the fuck up dude.


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._


*Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
*Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
*



*
*"Consumer demand[edit]*

"Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.

*"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*

"An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

*"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*


----------



## bripat9643

charwin95 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude... you have not posted nothing credible but delusional. "
> 
> Some of the shit you post just cracks me up.  Did you read the above mess before you posted it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific because most of your rebuttal are just one liner or 5 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you don't see the problem with your English?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? And this is you best rebuttal for idiots like you.
> Keep trying you might piss me off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rebuttal?"  I was answering your question, dumbass.  Apparently you didn't understand that I was ridiculing your appalling English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's is your rebuttal? Grow the fuck up dude.
Click to expand...

You mean grownups wouldn't ridicule your appalling English?  Did they give you a participation trophy?


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need a lollipop? You're kinda cranky today.
> 
> If you promise to be good, I'll make it a Tootsie Pop. And, if you're REALLY good, you can have chocolate milk at recess, too !!!
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
> That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
> 
> Twit? Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT?
> 
> YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a  twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.
> Keep trying.
Click to expand...

Temper! Temper!

You'll get respect when you've earned respect .... until then, you're just a little kid crying for attention.


----------



## charwin95

Spare_change said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I was talking to you in decent manner then you came up blasting for somebody else.
> That shows you were deflecting because you only came up with your one sentence rebuttal.
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
> 
> Twit? Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT?
> 
> YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a  twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.
> Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temper! Temper!
> 
> You'll get respect when you've earned respect .... until then, you're just a little kid crying for attention.
Click to expand...


Meaning you are just a piece of shit.


----------



## Spare_change

charwin95 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish incantations do not constitute input ... you have acted like a little child, calling people names and using vulgarity against everyone. You need to grow up and talk like an adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to you like an adult. Twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope --- name calling and vulgrity is not a sign of maturity. That's what they do in the fifth grade. You don't seem to be able to posit a postion without attacking the other individual -- evidently, you don't think the strength ofyour argument will withstand scrutiny.
> 
> Twit? Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a classic example of a hypocrite BASTARD. There are members here talking to me like a little kid, no class which I did not provoke..... Did you blasted them? WHY NOT?
> 
> YOU ARE PISSING ME OFF. I'm not only calling you a  twit but I consider you FUCKING BASTARD.
> Keep trying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temper! Temper!
> 
> You'll get respect when you've earned respect .... until then, you're just a little kid crying for attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning you are just a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

So mature ... so adult ....


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
Click to expand...

The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



It is no wonder you are brainwashed, reading unabashed propaganda, such as the National Economics Editorial,  But do not expect any educated person to believe the facts and figures of a self described independent (LOL) intellectual (LOL) with a focus on applied philosophy (?), empirical history (?), and practical economics (?), as does the Editor-In-Chief of the National Economics Editorial.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called working under the table..
> 
> 
> And how much those apples will cost? The same price as a Big Mac if we raise the minimum wage nationaly, what the fuck is wrong with your type anyways?
> 
> You defend artificaly raising the minimum wage and are entirely against letting the market decide wages after kicking out illegal immigrants who shouldn't belong here under cutting American jobs in the first place.
> 
> Letting the market decide is free choice to company's.. Either raise wages or no one will work for you..
> 
> Forcing companies to raise wages if they can afford it or not is fucking stupid and retarded.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> I]_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> For your post #363 & 364.
> 
> You are totally lost in the jungle dude. Big time. This just show how a ignorant you are.
> Tell me what is so hard working at McDonald's or Walmart inside an air conditioned building compared to working at  ------- convalescence home, home care, agricultural farm at 100+° , slaughter house etc etc etc? Tell me.
> 
> On top of that you did not even answer every single questions I asked you.
> _
Click to expand...



All you did was deflect and could never figure out supply and demand. 

Got bored of you....



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
Click to expand...



Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?


.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Original Tree said:


> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.



Better yet, decriminalize drugs of abuse, which will:

reduce an over crowed prison/jail system, 
reduce the cost of enforcement of the failed war on drugs
reduce court costs
reduce crime now supporting drug use
eliminate a multi billion dollar black market
reduce medical costs for OD's and STD's
Q.  What are the annual costs to treat alcohol abuse and the use of tobacco


----------



## The Original Tree

Wry Catcher said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, decriminalize drugs of abuse, which will:
> 
> reduce an over crowed prison/jail system,
> reduce the cost of enforcement of the failed war on drugs
> reduce court costs
> reduce crime now supporting drug use
> eliminate a multi billion dollar black market
> reduce medical costs for OD's and STD's
> Q.  What are the annual costs to treat alcohol abuse and the use of tobacco
Click to expand...


I would only be for decriminalizing Marijuana & Alcohol.


----------



## oldsoul

Reasonable said:


> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence.


And here it is, about a week and a half later. Where is this "solid evidence" you speak of?



Reasonable said:


> Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.


In case you didn't know, taking down Trump (removing him from office), would put Pence in. Remove him and you get Paul Ryan. So, are you going to take all three of them down? Well then you end up with Orrin Hatch. Take him down and the list continues: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.

 How far down the list do we would need to go to get a person who is acceptable to you?

Anyone in favor of removing Trump, for whatever reason, should make themselves familiar with the following before going any further in advocating such action:
Presidential Succession Act - Wikipedia
And make sure that you can make the case to go as far as it takes to get someone you "approve of", otherwise it's a waste of time, and an undermining of the Republic for no, or little, good reason.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The Original Tree said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, decriminalize drugs of abuse, which will:
> 
> reduce an over crowed prison/jail system,
> reduce the cost of enforcement of the failed war on drugs
> reduce court costs
> reduce crime now supporting drug use
> eliminate a multi billion dollar black market
> reduce medical costs for OD's and STD's
> Q.  What are the annual costs to treat alcohol abuse and the use of tobacco
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would only be for decriminalizing Marijuana & Alcohol.
Click to expand...


Alcohol is already, and it is regulated.  Marijuana remains illegal - it is a schedule I drug - and is an example of why the war on drugs is such an economic boondoggle. 

Can other drugs of abuse be medically supervised and prescribed?  Read this link below, and you decide.  Keep in mind the War on Drugs is an on going and expensive failure:

British System of Drug-Addiction Treatment - Dictionary definition of British System of Drug-Addiction Treatment | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary


----------



## Wry Catcher

oldsoul said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is, about a week and a half later. Where is this "solid evidence" you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you didn't know, taking down Trump (removing him from office), would put Pence in. Remove him and you get Paul Ryan. So, are you going to take all three of them down? Well then you end up with Orrin Hatch. Take him down and the list continues: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
> 
> How far down the list do we would need to go to get a person who is acceptable to you?
> 
> Anyone in favor of removing Trump, for whatever reason, should make themselves familiar with the following before going any further in advocating such action:
> Presidential Succession Act - Wikipedia
> And make sure that you can make the case to go as far as it takes to get someone you "approve of", otherwise it's a waste of time, and an undermining of the Republic for no, or little, good reason.
Click to expand...


Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.  Pence is a magic Christian, aka, likely to ignore the limits of government set in the First Amendment.  But, he is not all of the above, and would likely replace the obsequious ideologues Trump nominated for his cabinet and the senate confirmed by partisan vote.

Pence is a professional pol, and understands the process; something else in which Trump is deficient.


----------



## Wyatt earp

georgephillip said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
Click to expand...



*The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour*
*
*
Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year 

This is what the average American made last year


----------



## edward37

bear513 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult for republicans to raise minimum wage??


----------



## Wyatt earp

edward37 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it so difficult for republicans to raise minimum wage??
Click to expand...



Why do you want to raise it national? We have no problem with it being raised by the states and locally which is being done ..

Again $25 bucks an hour in New York City is like making $5 bucks an hour in Alabama.


----------



## Aries

To look at the wealth inequality in America and blame it on the guy picking fruit is beyond ridiculous.
The article Bripat provided is ridiculous as it cites paying for things that undocumented people DO NOT have access to.
Our entire nation was created on immigration. If you are not Native American, YOU come from an immigrant.
Your immigrant ancestors showed up poor, dirty, and tired on our shores and we welcomed them with open arms.
A path to citizenship, one that doesn't take decades, is the American way.


----------



## edward37

bear513 said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it so difficult for republicans to raise minimum wage??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise it national? We have no problem with it being raised by the states and locally which is being done ..
> 
> Again $25 bucks an hour in New York City is like making $5 bucks an hour in Alabama.
Click to expand...

Think you overestimate greatly


----------



## Wyatt earp

edward37 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it so difficult for republicans to raise minimum wage??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise it national? We have no problem with it being raised by the states and locally which is being done ..
> 
> Again $25 bucks an hour in New York City is like making $5 bucks an hour in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you overestimate greatly
Click to expand...



True, but not really if you are a 3 day a pack minimum wage earner smoker in New York City who likes to drink big gulps 



.

.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
Click to expand...

It helps when you actually read the articles:



> Still, 67 percent of wage earners made less than or equal to the average. Median compensation came in at $28,851.21 for the year, up from $28,031.02 in 2013.


----------



## danielpalos

edward37 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it so difficult for republicans to raise minimum wage??
Click to expand...

and benefit the least wealthy under our form of capitalism, for "free"?


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Working under the table doesn't hide the cost of the labor.
> You analogy of using the minimum wage increase is not the same than paying you $25/hour. The minimum wage doesn't jump from $10 to $16 in one day. People at McDonald's do not make $16.
> What made you think farmers can afford all his laborers to pay $25/hour?
> 
> And if you remove all these illegals from -----  let say agricultural jobs ------ Who will take over those jobs?
> You are so worried foreigners taking over jobs and yet you have Trump hiring foreigners paying $10.20/hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> I]_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> For your post #363 & 364.
> 
> You are totally lost in the jungle dude. Big time. This just show how a ignorant you are.
> Tell me what is so hard working at McDonald's or Walmart inside an air conditioned building compared to working at  ------- convalescence home, home care, agricultural farm at 100+° , slaughter house etc etc etc? Tell me.
> 
> On top of that you did not even answer every single questions I asked you.
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All you did was deflect and could never figure out supply and demand.
> 
> Got bored of you....
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually you never answer any of my questions.


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can afford it the same way some McDonald's and Walmart's were paying $17 bucks an hour in the Dakotas
> 
> 
> God you refuse to get supply and demand.
> 
> 
> Right now illegals take those jobs becau6no one else wants to get paid that little, you remove the supply of labor .....wages always go up what's so complicated to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy. 
Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it so difficult for republicans to raise minimum wage??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to raise it national? We have no problem with it being raised by the states and locally which is being done ..
> 
> Again $25 bucks an hour in New York City is like making $5 bucks an hour in Alabama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you overestimate greatly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True, but not really if you are a 3 day a pack minimum wage earner smoker in New York City who likes to drink big gulps
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If you are applying your street smart that might work. But we are not.


----------



## danielpalos

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you think should those kind of agricultural jobs get paid? 25$?
> I know couple of business owners here to in Ca that own McDonald's franchises and none are making $16 except shift managers.
> What made you think I don't recognized/refused ------ supply and demands? That is what I do for a living but I refuse to believe and believe:
> 1. Most Americans will not take over those jobs even if you raised it to a reasonable $18.
> 2. You don't just wake up and suddenly you want to work in those kind of hard dirty labor. If you are not born to do this kind of jobs you will not last and probably quit the same or the next day. That's been proven over and over. I believed you are physically tough but not all Americans are like you.
> 3.  if you have kids ------ are you going to give up your welfare checks and work for $18 to $20?
> Then pay babysitter.
> 4. Even if you find Americans that are willing to work in those kind environments. I'm very sure it's not in millions.
> 5. Now -------- What are you going to do if those illegals are gone? Shut down the agricultural business?
> 6. Definitely all prices will also go up from food to other services. Are you speaking for the rest of poor Americans that are trying to get by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
Click to expand...

Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.


----------



## oldsoul

Wry Catcher said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is, about a week and a half later. Where is this "solid evidence" you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you didn't know, taking down Trump (removing him from office), would put Pence in. Remove him and you get Paul Ryan. So, are you going to take all three of them down? Well then you end up with Orrin Hatch. Take him down and the list continues: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
> 
> How far down the list do we would need to go to get a person who is acceptable to you?
> 
> Anyone in favor of removing Trump, for whatever reason, should make themselves familiar with the following before going any further in advocating such action:
> Presidential Succession Act - Wikipedia
> And make sure that you can make the case to go as far as it takes to get someone you "approve of", otherwise it's a waste of time, and an undermining of the Republic for no, or little, good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.  Pence is a magic Christian, aka, likely to ignore the limits of government set in the First Amendment.  But, he is not all of the above, and would likely replace the obsequious ideologues Trump nominated for his cabinet and the senate confirmed by partisan vote.
> 
> Pence is a professional pol, and understands the process; something else in which Trump is deficient.
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.


Trump is "incompetent"? Well, seeing as he was competent enough to beat Clinton, what does that say about the "best and brightest" the DNC has to offer? Before you trot out some crap about how Clinton won the "popular vote", let me save you the trouble, she did, but that is not how Presidents are elected in this country. Also, if you want to bring up the alleged "Russian collusion", please, by all means provide the proof that has been, thus far, so elusive.

The rest, I would tend to agree with you on, but incompetent? No, I have to disagree with you there.


----------



## charwin95

danielpalos said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
Click to expand...


Ford is only a company not a country and it was well planned. 
Try to apply that concept to illegals making between $8. to $15. in millions. 
Then tomorrow ------ that's right tomorrow make that $25/hour or up. How is that going to work if you own a restaurant or a farmer or others that depends on illegals? Definitely they will increase their prices.------- or they will close the door. That is if you can find enough Americans in millions that are willing to work. Some maybe but not in millions and millions.


----------



## charwin95

oldsoul said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is, about a week and a half later. Where is this "solid evidence" you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you didn't know, taking down Trump (removing him from office), would put Pence in. Remove him and you get Paul Ryan. So, are you going to take all three of them down? Well then you end up with Orrin Hatch. Take him down and the list continues: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
> 
> How far down the list do we would need to go to get a person who is acceptable to you?
> 
> Anyone in favor of removing Trump, for whatever reason, should make themselves familiar with the following before going any further in advocating such action:
> Presidential Succession Act - Wikipedia
> And make sure that you can make the case to go as far as it takes to get someone you "approve of", otherwise it's a waste of time, and an undermining of the Republic for no, or little, good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.  Pence is a magic Christian, aka, likely to ignore the limits of government set in the First Amendment.  But, he is not all of the above, and would likely replace the obsequious ideologues Trump nominated for his cabinet and the senate confirmed by partisan vote.
> 
> Pence is a professional pol, and understands the process; something else in which Trump is deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is "incompetent"? Well, seeing as he was competent enough to beat Clinton, what does that say about the "best and brightest" the DNC has to offer? Before you trot out some crap about how Clinton won the "popular vote", let me save you the trouble, she did, but that is not how Presidents are elected in this country. Also, if you want to bring up the alleged "Russian collusion", please, by all means provide the proof that has been, thus far, so elusive.
> 
> The rest, I would tend to agree with you on, but incompetent? No, I have to disagree with you there.
Click to expand...


Incompetent?  So how is he doing today?


----------



## Issa

"Illegal immigration" is the backbone of this country even Trump knows it. Think for a moment what the cost of food will be if there are no illegal immigrants.
And building a huge wall won't stop people from come in illegally, it'll be via boats, visas, tunnels, even cargo.
Trump is a populist liar, and the uneducated dumb and shallow minded ate his bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

charwin95 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ford is only a company not a country and it was well planned.
> Try to apply that concept to illegals making between $8. to $15. in millions.
> Then tomorrow ------ that's right tomorrow make that $25/hour or up. How is that going to work if you own a restaurant or a farmer or others that depends on illegals? Definitely they will increase their prices.------- or they will close the door. That is if you can find enough Americans in millions that are willing to work. Some maybe but not in millions and millions.
Click to expand...

You make my case for me; who are you going to hire at fifteen dollars an hour?


----------



## danielpalos

Issa said:


> "Illegal immigration" is the backbone of this country even Trump knows it. Think for a moment what the cost of food will be if there are no illegal immigrants.
> And building a huge wall won't stop people from come in illegally, it'll be via boats, visas, tunnels, even cargo.
> Trump is a populist liar, and the uneducated dumb and shallow minded ate his bullshit.


The right wing has no solutions, just more, socialism on a national basis.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why One Walmart in North Dakota Is Paying $17.40 an Hour*
> 
> Philip Wegmann
> 3 years ago
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
> 
> A Walmart store in Williston, N.D., is offering to pay entry-level workers as much as $17.40 per hour—nearly 2½ times the federal minimum wage—in an effort to compete in one of America’s most dynamic labor markets.
> 
> The push for a “living wage” has gained momentum in cities such as Seattle recently. But the historic oil boom in North Dakota has provided real, sustained growth in wages and lowered unemployment in North Dakota to 2.6 percent—the lowest statewide rate in the nation—and to less than 1 percent in Williston, which is near the oil fields in the western part of the state.
> 
> 
> ://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2014/06/10/drilling-innovation-forcing-walmart-north-dakota-pay-17-40-hour/amp/
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
Click to expand...



Does everyone work at Ford you stupid fucking socialist?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does everyone work at Ford you stupid fucking socialist?
Click to expand...

what percent of the population works minimum wage?


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does everyone work at Ford you stupid fucking socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what percent of the population works minimum wage?
Click to expand...




What percentage of working Americans make under :$15 bucks an hour?


.


----------



## oldsoul

charwin95 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it's simple economics 101 you get  rid of 20 million illegals wages
> Will go up...
> 
> 
> *McDonald’s Signing Bonuses: North Dakota Outlet Offering $300 To Potential Hires*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ford is only a company not a country and it was well planned.
> Try to apply that concept to illegals making between $8. to $15. in millions.
> Then tomorrow ------ that's right tomorrow make that $25/hour or up. How is that going to work if you own a restaurant or a farmer or others that depends on illegals? Definitely they will increase their prices.------- or they will close the door. That is if you can find enough Americans in millions that are willing to work. Some maybe but not in millions and millions.
Click to expand...

As I recall, this argument was made in the mid 19th century, although in a slightly different way, in regards to the end of slavery. Then, what happened? Holy crap, someone got the great idea of mechanising many of the tasks that were once performed by slaves. I wonder if history would repeat itself here...


----------



## oldsoul

charwin95 said:


> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oldsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is, about a week and a half later. Where is this "solid evidence" you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you didn't know, taking down Trump (removing him from office), would put Pence in. Remove him and you get Paul Ryan. So, are you going to take all three of them down? Well then you end up with Orrin Hatch. Take him down and the list continues: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Homeland Security.
> 
> How far down the list do we would need to go to get a person who is acceptable to you?
> 
> Anyone in favor of removing Trump, for whatever reason, should make themselves familiar with the following before going any further in advocating such action:
> Presidential Succession Act - Wikipedia
> And make sure that you can make the case to go as far as it takes to get someone you "approve of", otherwise it's a waste of time, and an undermining of the Republic for no, or little, good reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.  Pence is a magic Christian, aka, likely to ignore the limits of government set in the First Amendment.  But, he is not all of the above, and would likely replace the obsequious ideologues Trump nominated for his cabinet and the senate confirmed by partisan vote.
> 
> Pence is a professional pol, and understands the process; something else in which Trump is deficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is incompetent, compulsive, a megalomaniac, a narcissist, and a charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is "incompetent"? Well, seeing as he was competent enough to beat Clinton, what does that say about the "best and brightest" the DNC has to offer? Before you trot out some crap about how Clinton won the "popular vote", let me save you the trouble, she did, but that is not how Presidents are elected in this country. Also, if you want to bring up the alleged "Russian collusion", please, by all means provide the proof that has been, thus far, so elusive.
> 
> The rest, I would tend to agree with you on, but incompetent? No, I have to disagree with you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incompetent?  So how is he doing today?
Click to expand...

Seems to be doing just as well as Mr Obama did, IMHO.


----------



## oldsoul

danielpalos said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Illegal immigration" is the backbone of this country even Trump knows it. Think for a moment what the cost of food will be if there are no illegal immigrants.
> And building a huge wall won't stop people from come in illegally, it'll be via boats, visas, tunnels, even cargo.
> Trump is a populist liar, and the uneducated dumb and shallow minded ate his bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing has no solutions, just more, socialism on a national basis.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you are correct. That is why I have abandoned BOTH the GOP and the DNC, and people are joining me in droves.


----------



## Issa

This society when it comes to physical labor is too lazy. Is no stranger why we are the fattest nationa on earth. I wish most conservatives visit other parts of the world and see how healthy people and fashionable they can be. Cause to them there is nothing better out there....I invite you to see what kids eat the school cafeteria, mind blowing.



oldsoul said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ford is only a company not a country and it was well planned.
> Try to apply that concept to illegals making between $8. to $15. in millions.
> Then tomorrow ------ that's right tomorrow make that $25/hour or up. How is that going to work if you own a restaurant or a farmer or others that depends on illegals? Definitely they will increase their prices.------- or they will close the door. That is if you can find enough Americans in millions that are willing to work. Some maybe but not in millions and millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall, this argument was made in the mid 19th century, although in a slightly different way, in regards to the end of slavery. Then, what happened? Holy crap, someone got the great idea of mechanising many of the tasks that were once performed by slaves. I wonder if history would repeat itself here...
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does everyone work at Ford you stupid fucking socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what percent of the population works minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of working Americans make under :$15 bucks an hour?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

does it really matter?  the right wing is just clueless and Causeless about economics; fast food surcharges prove it.


----------



## charwin95

danielpalos said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm telling you are the facts and reality in life ------ No bullshit.
> What you are telling me are just pure nonsense and just plain tough shit ------- Bullshit.
> 
> Let me dissect the anomaly of your anally constipated economy 101. These illegals mostly works for agricultural, meat and poultry, garments, home care, convalescence home, cleaning etc etc etc with low paying jobs. Not in the corporate world.
> 1. As an example----------- Restaurants using your $25 estimate. In order to entice my fellow Americans to work as a bus boy, dish washer, janitor, cook at a restaurant you want them to get paid from $8 to $25. Most likely hostess and waitresses will be asking for $25/hour wages also. Since the prices of meat, chicken and vegetables went skyrocketed------ you also increased the labor of the restaurant workers overnight to $25.
> How much do you think the price increase of those menus? How many customers do you think can afford to go to these restaurants? Are these restaurants gaining more customers or less? What do you think will happen to the restaurants enterprises?
> 2. Since food and other consumables went up because of your policy -------- Do you think car repairs, airlines, home care, beauty shops and other services will stay the same or go up? What do you think will happen to people like you who has fix income?
> In short your just fucked up the economy.
> 
> Anything else tough guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ford is only a company not a country and it was well planned.
> Try to apply that concept to illegals making between $8. to $15. in millions.
> Then tomorrow ------ that's right tomorrow make that $25/hour or up. How is that going to work if you own a restaurant or a farmer or others that depends on illegals? Definitely they will increase their prices.------- or they will close the door. That is if you can find enough Americans in millions that are willing to work. Some maybe but not in millions and millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make my case for me; who are you going to hire at fifteen dollars an hour?
Click to expand...


People at the home care, farm workers, carpenters etc make $15 or $18.  I don't get involved with these type of labors but I know lots of business owners that are in to these types of enterprises.


----------



## charwin95

Issa said:


> "Illegal immigration" is the backbone of this country even Trump knows it. Think for a moment what the cost of food will be if there are no illegal immigrants.
> And building a huge wall won't stop people from come in illegally, it'll be via boats, visas, tunnels, even cargo.
> Trump is a populist liar, and the uneducated dumb and shallow minded ate his bullshit.



A lot of Americans don't understand or not willing to understand that.


----------



## Issa

Most people that are complaining about illegals, benefit from illegals directly or indirectly. I'm yet to meet an illegal that is lazy and obese, and is watching TV non stop or online 24/7. Most they came here for better life and  to help their families.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does everyone work at Ford you stupid fucking socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what percent of the population works minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of working Americans make under :$15 bucks an hour?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

social services "pay out" the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour.  our minimum wage should beat that "pay out" under our form of capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

charwin95 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you don't think that would happen raising the minimum wage don't you dumb ass?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rising the minimum wage gradually will not hurt the economy.
> Rising wages overnight at very high rate will cripple the economy. Just like your example of $25/hour under the table. Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ford doubled auto worker wages, not minimum wages.  There was no harm to the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ford is only a company not a country and it was well planned.
> Try to apply that concept to illegals making between $8. to $15. in millions.
> Then tomorrow ------ that's right tomorrow make that $25/hour or up. How is that going to work if you own a restaurant or a farmer or others that depends on illegals? Definitely they will increase their prices.------- or they will close the door. That is if you can find enough Americans in millions that are willing to work. Some maybe but not in millions and millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make my case for me; who are you going to hire at fifteen dollars an hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People at the home care, farm workers, carpenters etc make $15 or $18.  I don't get involved with these type of labors but I know lots of business owners that are in to these types of enterprises.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no need for minimum wage labor.


----------



## georgephillip

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
Click to expand...

*Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*

http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf

"Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."

"Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."


----------



## georgephillip

bear513 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
Click to expand...

*Your link:*
"Still, 67 percent of wage earners made less than or equal to the average. Median compensation came in at $28,851.21 for the year, up from $28,031.02 in 2013. 

"Despite the increase in average compensation last year, pay has struggled to pick up momentum recently. Wages were flat in September, according to the Labor Department."

*The average wage appears to be about $15 an hour for two-thirds of US workers, and that sounds a little optimistic to me, at least as far as non-college educated workers are concerned.*


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
Click to expand...

"Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour
> 
> *
> Looks like idiots are still editing wiki with fake news/information ,, the average wage is around $22 bucks an hour, 44 grand a year
> 
> This is what the average American made last year
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your link:*
> "Still, 67 percent of wage earners made less than or equal to the average. Median compensation came in at $28,851.21 for the year, up from $28,031.02 in 2013.
> 
> "Despite the increase in average compensation last year, pay has struggled to pick up momentum recently. Wages were flat in September, according to the Labor Department."
> 
> *The average wage appears to be about $15 an hour for two-thirds of US workers, and that sounds a little optimistic to me, at least as far as non-college educated workers are concerned.*
Click to expand...

The right wing is usually only right twice a day; it is the only reason I pay any attention to their arguments.  the right wing usually has nothing but fantasy.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
Click to expand...



And your only option is the alternative,  no jobs and despair 



.


----------



## georgephillip

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
Click to expand...

*And it also means only little people pay taxes:

http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
*
"8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."

*I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your only option is the alternative,  no jobs and despair
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That is the right wing; they have, nothing but repeal.


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
Click to expand...

The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.


----------



## georgephillip

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Immigrants aren't the problem; they never were.*
> *Crony-capitalists getting rich from wars and the "magic of compound interest blame immigrants to distract from their own crimes.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *"Consumer demand[edit]*
> 
> "Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total US workforce. Illegal immigrants occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just under 4% of the total number of homes in the US. UCLA research indicates immigrants produce $150 billion of economic activity equivalent to spending stimulus every year.
> 
> *"The advantages of illegal migration tend mostly to be on the side of the employer.*
> 
> "An employer will benefit from the illegal status of a migrant who is desperate for work and therefore prepared to accept poor pay, usually below local norms. Hiring an illegal worker also brings the employer the advantage of paying less in the way of welfare contributions and other non-wage costs.[26]
> 
> Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US.[27"*
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
Click to expand...

*Except when they need their votes:

Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
*
"The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.

*"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*

"These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing loves their socialism on an national basis.  They do not believe their socialism is just plain "bloatware" because it is for their nationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
Click to expand...

You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.


----------



## RASTAMEN

Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??


Red State conservative voting service member will enjoy dying and getting used by an illegitimate President!


----------



## georgephillip

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> 
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
Click to expand...

Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> 
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.
Click to expand...

Seems like the democrats are willing to try to come up with some solutions, instead of having nothing but repeal.


----------



## georgephillip

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like the democrats are willing to try to come up with some solutions, instead of having nothing but repeal.
Click to expand...

But we don't see any Democrats proposing the solutions FDR was compelled to make at the outset of the Great Depression. Obama promised Hope and Change and eight years later millions of blue collar voters who had supported him twice turned to Trump. Any possibility of a Green New Deal that would supply millions of living wage jobs does not seem to be a solution either major party will seriously consider, possibly because of the tax burden it would place on their major funders.


----------



## bripat9643

RASTAMEN said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> Red State conservative voting service member will enjoy dying and getting used by an illegitimate President!
Click to expand...


That photo was taken during the Obama administration because Bush wouldn't allow it.


----------



## bripat9643

georgephillip said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like the democrats are willing to try to come up with some solutions, instead of having nothing but repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we don't see any Democrats proposing the solutions FDR was compelled to make at the outset of the Great Depression. Obama promised Hope and Change and eight years later millions of blue collar voters who had supported him twice turned to Trump. Any possibility of a Green New Deal that would supply millions of living wage jobs does not seem to be a solution either major party will seriously consider, possibly because of the tax burden it would place on their major funders.
Click to expand...

The only thing that compelled FDR to make any of his decisions was his fascist ideology.


----------



## danielpalos

georgephillip said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like the democrats are willing to try to come up with some solutions, instead of having nothing but repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we don't see any Democrats proposing the solutions FDR was compelled to make at the outset of the Great Depression. Obama promised Hope and Change and eight years later millions of blue collar voters who had supported him twice turned to Trump. Any possibility of a Green New Deal that would supply millions of living wage jobs does not seem to be a solution either major party will seriously consider, possibly because of the tax burden it would place on their major funders.
Click to expand...

bailing out the rich had priority over equal protection of the law for the poor.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Many conservatives seem genuinely confused about the extent of the Nanny State and how much they benefit from its largess:*
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> 
> "Beyond the Conservative Nanny State: Policies to Promote Self-Sufficiency Among the Wealthy..."
> 
> "Conservatives have managed to dominate the national debate on economic policy over the last quarter century. They have implemented a wide range of policies that have had the effect of redistributing income from those at the middle and the bottom to those at the top. This effort has been successful in part because conservatives never acknowledged the government’s role in this upward redistribution, claiming all along that it was simply the natural workings of the market."
> 
> 
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
Click to expand...



That would be your party buying cheap crap from chins


.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Trickle down" economics is public policy; in effect, it means, bail out the wealthiest, and then let it "trickle down".
> 
> 
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your party buying cheap crap from chins
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Better products at lower cost, always increase market share.  That is a management responsibility.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And it also means only little people pay taxes:
> 
> http://cepr.net/documents/cns_policies_2006_07.pdf
> *
> "8) Taxes Unpaid taxes are as much a burden to law-abiding taxpayers as any spending item. People who withhold taxes they owe are stealing from the government in the same way as someone who falsely files for TANF benefits, except the sums are likely much larger. The IRS estimated that in 2001, more than $340 billion in taxes went unpaid, an amount that is roughly equal to 20 times federal spending on TANF in that year."
> 
> *I've seen more recent numbers from 2015 indicating all US domestic and international (corporate?) unpaid taxes roughly equal the budget deficit from that year.*
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your party buying cheap crap from chins
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better products at lower cost, always increase market share.  That is a management responsibility.
Click to expand...



Better products at cheaper cost my ass..


Levi's made in America used to last a 100 years with men like me wearing them.


Hell  they were such bad asses people sell them for 1000s of dollars now a days


Now little girls can tear apart Levi's made in China in less then a week


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing, prefers to blame the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your party buying cheap crap from chins
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better products at lower cost, always increase market share.  That is a management responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Better products at cheaper cost my ass..
> 
> 
> Levi's made in America used to last a 100 years with men like me wearing them.
> 
> 
> Hell  they were such bad asses people sell them for 1000s of dollars now a days
> 
> 
> Now little girls can tear apart Levi's made in China in less then a week
Click to expand...

how about body paint that insulates like clothes?


----------



## georgephillip

bripat9643 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like the democrats are willing to try to come up with some solutions, instead of having nothing but repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we don't see any Democrats proposing the solutions FDR was compelled to make at the outset of the Great Depression. Obama promised Hope and Change and eight years later millions of blue collar voters who had supported him twice turned to Trump. Any possibility of a Green New Deal that would supply millions of living wage jobs does not seem to be a solution either major party will seriously consider, possibly because of the tax burden it would place on their major funders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing that compelled FDR to make any of his decisions was his fascist ideology.
Click to expand...






*Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikiquote*

*"'I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it'[edit]*

"I like this quote, it is reqularly repeated and would like to use it but I can't find a good reference to support it. Is it a real quote, a mis-quote or what? can anyone help? PeterEastern 12:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Harry Belafonte recalled in an interview with Tavis Smiley recently a story he was told by Eleanor Roosevelt. She related a public event when her husband, FDR, introduced Randolph and asked him, Belafonte recalled, 'what he thought of the nation, what he thought of the plight of the Negro people and what did he think ... where the nation was headed.' Continuing the story, Belafonte recounted what FDR replied upon hearing Randolph's remarks: '*You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it.'"*

A long train ride"


----------



## georgephillip

danielpalos said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Except when they need their votes:
> 
> Race, class and the election of Trump - World Socialist Web Site
> *
> "The interpretation of the 2016 election through the prism of race and, to a lesser extent, gender, stands in glaring contradiction to the facts. The electorate that defeated Clinton—the multimillionaire personification of the political status quo—had voted twice to put Barack Obama in the White House.
> 
> *"Trump owes his victory largely to a surge in voting by non-college-educated whites aged 45-64, particularly men. This demographic voted by a lopsided margin for the Republican billionaire.*
> 
> "These people, born between 1952 and 1971, entered the work force between 1970 and 1989. They therefore experienced mass layoffs, declining wages and worsening working conditions throughout their working lives."
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the same party that fired air traffic controllers and decimated unions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the mid-1970s the Democrats recognized the impending demise of organized labor's political influence and navigated into the same fund raising waters as Republicans. Imho, today both major parties serve the interests of the US investor class (about 5% of all voters) at the expense of the overwhelming majority of citizens with the lion's share of the gains going to those at the very top of the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like the democrats are willing to try to come up with some solutions, instead of having nothing but repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we don't see any Democrats proposing the solutions FDR was compelled to make at the outset of the Great Depression. Obama promised Hope and Change and eight years later millions of blue collar voters who had supported him twice turned to Trump. Any possibility of a Green New Deal that would supply millions of living wage jobs does not seem to be a solution either major party will seriously consider, possibly because of the tax burden it would place on their major funders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bailing out the rich had priority over equal protection of the law for the poor.
Click to expand...






This has been going on for thousands of years.
Maybe that's why the Internet was invented?
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...ns-and-businesses-control-politics-and-policy


----------



## P@triot

I have never been a proponent of the wall (I've always felt that the money would be better spent on technology and people as a means of securing our borders). But after seeing this, it's hard to argue with the results...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> I have never been a proponent of the wall (I've always felt that the money would be better spent on technology and people as a means of securing our borders). But after seeing this, it's hard to argue with the results...


Yes, it is our extra-Constitutional, alleged War on Drugs, that helps create the conditions described in the video.  It is what happens when we get a War on Drugs, instead of a Mission to Mars.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> I have never been a proponent of the wall (I've always felt that the money would be better spent on technology and people as a means of securing our borders). But after seeing this, it's hard to argue with the results...


I hate to say it, but what do you think I've been telling you?


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a proponent of the wall (I've always felt that the money would be better spent on technology and people as a means of securing our borders). But after seeing this, it's hard to argue with the results...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is our extra-Constitutional, alleged War on Drugs, that helps create the conditions described in the video.  It is what happens when we get a War on Drugs, instead of a Mission to Mars.
Click to expand...

Figured the dopers would oppose the wall.


----------



## Spare_change

bripat9643 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a proponent of the wall (I've always felt that the money would be better spent on technology and people as a means of securing our borders). But after seeing this, it's hard to argue with the results...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to say it, but what do you think I've been telling you?
Click to expand...

Nahhh, you don't hate to say it ... in fact, I think you kinda like it !!!!


----------



## oreo

Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??




The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.


*Watch the above video through it's entirety.*





They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone.
The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels





















*The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations.  Anything they can see--can and will always be compromised.  *


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
> 
> 
> *Watch the above video through it's entirety.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone.
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations.  Anything they can see--can and will always be compromised.  *
Click to expand...


So you showed, what, a dozen people getting through it?  How many got through before they built those walls, 600,000/year?  All your stupid transparent claims about the wall not working depend on it not being watched.  The effectiveness of anyone guarding the boarder without a wall will be magnified 1000 times by the wall.

Build the fucking wall, moron.


----------



## Spare_change

oreo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
Click to expand...


The average idiot - and you're certainly not average, are you - knows that the wall is but a single tool in a large toolbox of techniques, resources, and disciplines that can be used to manage the border.

To attempt to ignore those tools in order to try to prove your position is, at the least, intellectually dishonest, demonstrates your lack of engineering knowledge, and - at the most - is just plain dumb.


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a proponent of the wall (I've always felt that the money would be better spent on technology and people as a means of securing our borders). But after seeing this, it's hard to argue with the results...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is our extra-Constitutional, alleged War on Drugs, that helps create the conditions described in the video.  It is what happens when we get a War on Drugs, instead of a Mission to Mars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Figured the dopers would oppose the wall.
Click to expand...

Laissez-fair in public policies, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

oreo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
> 
> 
> *Watch the above video through it's entirety.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone.
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations.  Anything they can see--can and will always be compromised.  *
Click to expand...

Home Depot is in Mexico now; remember to buy or rent, American ladders.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
> 
> 
> *Watch the above video through it's entirety.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone.
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations.  Anything they can see--can and will always be compromised.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you showed, what, a dozen people getting through it?  How many got through before they built those walls, 600,000/year?  All your stupid transparent claims about the wall not working depend on it not being watched.  The effectiveness of anyone guarding the boarder without a wall will be magnified 1000 times by the wall.
> 
> Build the fucking wall, moron.
Click to expand...

A wall is more expensive than a market friendly visa with work authorization, potential.  Don't "hate on the poor and capitalism" at the same time.


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average idiot - and you're certainly not average, are you - knows that the wall is but a single tool in a large toolbox of techniques, resources, and disciplines that can be used to manage the border.
> 
> To attempt to ignore those tools in order to try to prove your position is, at the least, intellectually dishonest, demonstrates your lack of engineering knowledge, and - at the most - is just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

the right wing prefers to, "ditch capitalism" for their "national socialism" at every opportunity.


----------



## P@triot

Epic. At _every_ single turn, President Trump continues to be vindicated.


> “Walls work — just ask Israel.” - President Trump




 

Trump Tells Reporters: ‘Walls Work - Just Ask Israel’ - Breitbart


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the right wing prefers to, "ditch capitalism" for their "national socialism" at every opportunity.


That's left-wing ideology, snowflake. Right-wing ideology "ditches" fascism for liberty.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Epic. At _every_ single turn, President Trump continues to be vindicated.
> 
> 
> 
> “Walls work — just ask Israel.” - President Trump
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 127992
> 
> Trump Tells Reporters: ‘Walls Work - Just Ask Israel’ - Breitbart
Click to expand...

We have a Commerce Clause not a common offense or general warfare clause.  

Why does the right wing prefer to "ditch capitalism" for their socialism on a national basis?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing prefers to, "ditch capitalism" for their "national socialism" at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> That's left-wing ideology, snowflake. Right-wing ideology "ditches" fascism for liberty.
Click to expand...

You have to be able to recognize it, first, right winger.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing prefers to, "ditch capitalism" for their "national socialism" at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> That's left-wing ideology, snowflake. Right-wing ideology "ditches" fascism for liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be able to recognize it, first, right winger.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And you don't. That's why I stepped in and set the record straight.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a Commerce Clause *not* *a* common offense or *general warfare clause*.


Let the record show that danielpalos stated we do *not* have a "General Welfare" clause. Which means all the times he attempted to declare socialism/communism by the federal government as "legal" on the grounds of the "General Welfare" clause is null and void. As always, a left-winger has contradicted themselves.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Why does the right wing prefer to "ditch capitalism" for their socialism on a national basis?


The problem is you're not educated enough to understand the term capitalism. It does *not* mean refusal to enforce federal immigration laws and border security.

One can have pure capitalism and still enforce federal immigration laws and border security. The fact that you don't understand something that basic is why you are woefully unqualified to be engagin in this discussion.


----------



## deanrd

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


These numbers are skewed in every direction possible.  Worse, they are laughable.


----------



## tycho1572

Democrats aren't interested in any changes that benefit Americans.
Like many others with mental issues, their minds have settled in an entirely different world.


----------



## hazlnut

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.

All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.

So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.


----------



## tycho1572

hazlnut said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
Click to expand...

Legal migrants are a real win. That's something I can support.


----------



## PoliticalChic

hazlnut said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
Click to expand...



"All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy,..."

If by 'migrants' you mean illegal aliens....._your claim is false._

The facts aren't your friend...

 “The conservative Heritage Foundation estimated *unlawful immigrant households paid $39.2 billion in 2010, but received $93.7 billion in government services.”* -- *Oliver Darcy

[So much for that fable.]*
15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives



Even those from Mexico who legally come to work in America are a loss:
....the money taken from working Americans is sent to Mexico by these Mexican citizens....

*"Remittances totaled more than oil income*

*Money sent from abroad came to $24.8 billion last year, up 4.75%*

Mexico News Daily | Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Remittances sent home by Mexicans working outside the country surpassed [Mexican] petroleum revenues in 2015 for the first time.

There was a 4.75% increase in money sent from abroad, most of which comes from the U.S., to total US $24.8 billion last year, up from $23.6 billion in 2014, said the Bank of México.

The bank said it was the first time remittances had totaled more than petroleum revenues since it began tracking them in 1995.
Oil revenues last year totaled $23.4 billion."
Remittances totaled more than Mexico's oil income


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing prefers to, "ditch capitalism" for their "national socialism" at every opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> That's left-wing ideology, snowflake. Right-wing ideology "ditches" fascism for liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be able to recognize it, first, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. And you don't. That's why I stepped in and set the record straight.
Click to expand...

dear, red herring specialists are just that.  There is no, "gospel Truth" in your propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> dear, red herring specialists are just that.


If only you understood what the term "Red Herring" meant...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, red herring specialists are just that.
> 
> 
> 
> If only you understood what the term "Red Herring" meant...
Click to expand...

you are a _natural_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> you are a _natural_...


...at kicking your ass across this board with *facts*


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Mexico needs America far, far, far, far more than we need them. Remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants generates more revenue for Mexico than their fucking oil exports.


----------



## BrokeLoser

hazlnut said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
Click to expand...


Hahaha...RIGHT!
I've heard this total bunch of bullshit thrown out there a time or two...Now I'm no math or Econ major so maybe that's why I can't make sense of it...yet it appears as if all the math one would need to know is 2+2=4 in order to figure this one out...no?
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000 per. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are benefiting Americans and this country?


----------



## danielpalos

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> Mexico needs America far, far, far, far more than we need them. Remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants generates more revenue for Mexico than their fucking oil exports.


Mexico is one of our largest trading partners.


----------



## bripat9643

deanrd said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> These numbers are skewed in every direction possible.  Worse, they are laughable.
Click to expand...

Prove it, asshole.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## bripat9643

hazlnut said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
Click to expand...

Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico needs America far, far, far, far more than we need them. Remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants generates more revenue for Mexico than their fucking oil exports.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is one of our largest trading partners.
Click to expand...


You may need to just cut back on them tortillas.


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico needs America far, far, far, far more than we need them. Remittances to Mexico from illegal immigrants generates more revenue for Mexico than their fucking oil exports.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is one of our largest trading partners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may need to just cut back on them tortillas.
Click to expand...

List of the largest trading partners of the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Mexico is one of our largest trading partners.


And your link says that we have a *negative* trade balance with them. Which means it would be to our advantage for us to lose them altogether as a trade partner. You LWNJs continue to make the best case yet for a border wall!


----------



## Never3ndr

bripat9643 said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.  

The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.


----------



## RealDave

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


  First, dipstick, the cost you post is different from the 123 your orange buddy posted.  Irregardless,  the cist is not a bet cost.

Second, El Dumpster has already backed off his promise for a "wall"  the entire length of the border.  

Third, bei8nbg the complete idiot you are, you assume the wall will completely end illegal immigration.

4th, bring up the Great Wall of China as an example of how a wall would work is really stupid as there was not air travel back then.  How many illegals get here by airplane?  Look it up sometimes & become better informed.

As for do the math, math is a science & you fuckwads hate science.


----------



## bripat9643

Never3ndr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...


Thanks for regurgitating all the discredited Leftwing talking points.  We have already heard them at least 1000 times, and we knew they were lies years ago.  I won't even waste my time disputing them.


----------



## bripat9643

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> First, dipstick, the cost you post is different from the 123 your orange buddy posted.  Irregardless,  the cist is not a bet cost.
> 
> Second, El Dumpster has already backed off his promise for a "wall"  the entire length of the border.
> 
> Third, bei8nbg the complete idiot you are, you assume the wall will completely end illegal immigration.
> 
> 4th, bring up the Great Wall of China as an example of how a wall would work is really stupid as there was not air travel back then.  How many illegals get here by airplane?  Look it up sometimes & become better informed.
> 
> As for do the math, math is a science & you fuckwads hate science.
Click to expand...


All lies and obvious idiocies, of course,  I've dealt with each of these bogus arguments hundreds of times already.  When are you douche bags just going to admit that you want an open border?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is one of our largest trading partners.
> 
> 
> 
> And your link says that we have a *negative* trade balance with them. Which means it would be to our advantage for us to lose them altogether as a trade partner. You LWNJs continue to make the best case yet for a border wall!
Click to expand...

This is Why, Nobody should ever take the right wing seriously about economics.

Trade Deficit With Mexico Is Good for America



> Mexico is a case in point. The country is America’s third-largest trading partner, with $525 billion in annual trade between them. It exports goods to the U.S. worth nearly $63 billion more than it imports. Only three other countries run larger surpluses with the U.S., making Mexico an obvious target for the Trump administration.


----------



## RealDave

bripat9643 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> First, dipstick, the cost you post is different from the 123 your orange buddy posted.  Irregardless,  the cist is not a bet cost.
> 
> Second, El Dumpster has already backed off his promise for a "wall"  the entire length of the border.
> 
> Third, bei8nbg the complete idiot you are, you assume the wall will completely end illegal immigration.
> 
> 4th, bring up the Great Wall of China as an example of how a wall would work is really stupid as there was not air travel back then.  How many illegals get here by airplane?  Look it up sometimes & become better informed.
> 
> As for do the math, math is a science & you fuckwads hate science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All lies and obvious idiocies, of course,  I've dealt with each of these bogus arguments hundreds of times already.  When are you douche bags just going to admit that you want an open border?
Click to expand...

So, you think the border is open now.  We have no border patrol, no walls/fences, no check points.

You're a moron.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Never3ndr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...



Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..


People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?






.
.


----------



## Wyatt earp

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> First, dipstick, the cost you post is different from the 123 your orange buddy posted.  Irregardless,  the cist is not a bet cost.
> 
> Second, El Dumpster has already backed off his promise for a "wall"  the entire length of the border.
> 
> Third, bei8nbg the complete idiot you are, you assume the wall will completely end illegal immigration.
> 
> 4th, bring up the Great Wall of China as an example of how a wall would work is really stupid as there was not air travel back then.  How many illegals get here by airplane?  Look it up sometimes & become better informed.
> 
> As for do the math, math is a science & you fuckwads hate science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All lies and obvious idiocies, of course,  I've dealt with each of these bogus arguments hundreds of times already.  When are you douche bags just going to admit that you want an open border?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you think the border is open now.  We have no border patrol, no walls/fences, no check points.
> 
> You're a moron.
Click to expand...



So what's your problem then? Oh yea Trump said it, the racist slurs you call a fellow liberal just because he now has a (R) after his name.


..


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
> 
> 
> *Watch the above video through it's entirety.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone.
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations.  Anything they can see--can and will always be compromised.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you showed, what, a dozen people getting through it?  How many got through before they built those walls, 600,000/year?  All your stupid transparent claims about the wall not working depend on it not being watched.  The effectiveness of anyone guarding the boarder without a wall will be magnified 1000 times by the wall.
> 
> Build the fucking wall, moron.
Click to expand...


There are more Mexicans moving back to Mexico than are making illegal crossings and that's been true since jobs dried up in the Great Recession. These are facts, not that you've ever listened to facts before. 

The wall will never be built.


----------



## Siete

deporting 20 million people would have crushed the economy and everyone but idiots knew that so it got checked off Shitforhairs to do list.

his "BIG BEAUTIFUL WALL" is just another pipe dream that made simpleton dick get hard, and capture votes, aka HORSESHIT.

take a look around dumbshits, none of the campaign bullshit he hooked you with will come true.

SUCKERS.


----------



## The Original Tree

The OP did not add in the cost of Illegal Drugs coming from
Mexico which is Trillions of Dollars.

We spend $51 Billion annually just on direct intervention but the hidden cost in health care costs, poverty in the inner cities, crime & violence is much
much greater.

The wall and better monitoring of the border is cheaper than doing nothing which is all Liberals ever want to do about illegal immigration.

And for the Naysayers, the wall is already being built.  Perhaps not at a dramatic pace but it is being built as we speak.



Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??


----------



## Siete

bear513 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...




you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.


man o man, RW's are morons.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
Click to expand...




Once again ashole supply and fucking demand.. Just like there was McDonald's and Walmarts paying $15~ $17 dollar starting wages up in the Dakotas a few years ago...


You ignorant fuck about economics.


.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
Click to expand...




Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?

Answer the question yes or No?


Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?


Answer the question yes or no?

It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...



.


----------



## oreo

Siete said:


> deporting 20 million people would have crushed the economy and everyone but idiots knew that so it got checked off Shitforhairs to do list.
> 
> his "BIG BEAUTIFUL WALL" is just another pipe dream that made simpleton dick get hard, and capture votes, aka HORSESHIT.
> 
> take a look around dumbshits, none of the campaign bullshit he hooked you with will come true.
> 
> SUCKERS.




Totally agree--these people do not understand that 40% of illegals in this country own homes, they buy cars, they buy electronics--they purchase everything that we do and circulate approximately 4 trillion into our economy each and every year.  Kicking them all out spells economic disaster.
Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

Alabama went to the extreme and kicked them all out and it wasn't long before they were begging them to come back.
Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences

The biggest cost of illegal immigration comes in education.  They are not eligible to vote nor are they eligible for welfare benefits.

What we need is immigration reform NOW--to insure that they're paying their fair share of FICA--federal and state taxes.


----------



## Siete

bear513 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?
> 
> Answer the question yes or No?
> 
> 
> Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?
> 
> 
> Answer the question yes or no?
> 
> It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



you dont get shit do you.


why does wmart pay min wage dumbass ?   they have plenty of demand.


I actually saw an hour special on Florida Orange Growers. They dont pay by the hour. They pay by load, and workers have quotas. Your candy ass wouldn't last until lunch.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?
> 
> Answer the question yes or No?
> 
> 
> Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?
> 
> 
> Answer the question yes or no?
> 
> It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you dont get shit do you.
> 
> 
> why does wmart pay min wage dumbass ?   they have plenty of demand.
> 
> 
> I actually saw an hour special on Florida Orange Growers. They dont pay by the hour. They pay by load, and workers have quotas. Your candy ass wouldn't last until lunch.
Click to expand...




You still don't want to answer my questions?



Again why did some Walmarts and McDonald's a few years ago _*start off workers at $15 ~ $17 bucks an hour?*_


I will wait for you to ignore the questions again.


.


----------



## Siete

bear513 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?
> 
> Answer the question yes or No?
> 
> 
> Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?
> 
> 
> Answer the question yes or no?
> 
> It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you dont get shit do you.
> 
> 
> why does wmart pay min wage dumbass ?   they have plenty of demand.
> 
> 
> I actually saw an hour special on Florida Orange Growers. They dont pay by the hour. They pay by load, and workers have quotas. Your candy ass wouldn't last until lunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't want to answer my questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Again why did some Walmarts and McDonald's a few years ago _*start off workers at $15 ~ $17 bucks an hour?*_
> 
> 
> I will wait for you to ignore the questions again.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


fuck mickey d's, we're talking about farm workers ...


Orange growers take bids from contractors to have an orchard harvested. The work is done on a timeline. Fruits and veggies are perishable. Low bid fastest harvest time gets the contract. Contractors hire workers to finish the job for x$ in xdays and leave enough on the table for them to make a profit. Its called price control, and the price is controlled from square one with the farmer on down the line to consumers.

now, go pick dingleberrys out of your ass.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...

Just right wing propaganda; y'all are too lazy to even come up with valid arguments, much less a work ethic from the Age of Iron.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...



Of course it is.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comrade's wall is not going to get built..  Congress has already said NO--they're not going to fund it, and for good reason--*they don't work.*  A great video on this--at the end of this video it will tell you how much we already wasted on walls and fences.  Then it will move into another video regarding the terrain issues, and the problems with structural security.
> 
> 
> *Watch the above video through it's entirety.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have found 240 of these in the San Diego region alone.
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only way to secure the border is with high tech motion detectors and more border patrol stations.  Anything they can see--can and will always be compromised.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you showed, what, a dozen people getting through it?  How many got through before they built those walls, 600,000/year?  All your stupid transparent claims about the wall not working depend on it not being watched.  The effectiveness of anyone guarding the boarder without a wall will be magnified 1000 times by the wall.
> 
> Build the fucking wall, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are more Mexicans moving back to Mexico than are making illegal crossings and that's been true since jobs dried up in the Great Recession. These are facts, not that you've ever listened to facts before.
> 
> The wall will never be built.
Click to expand...


They certainly aren't facts.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
Click to expand...


Only brain damaged morons would dispute it.  Logically, it isn't disputable.


----------



## bripat9643

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?
> 
> Answer the question yes or No?
> 
> 
> Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?
> 
> 
> Answer the question yes or no?
> 
> It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you dont get shit do you.
> 
> 
> why does wmart pay min wage dumbass ?   they have plenty of demand.
> 
> 
> I actually saw an hour special on Florida Orange Growers. They dont pay by the hour. They pay by load, and workers have quotas. Your candy ass wouldn't last until lunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't want to answer my questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Again why did some Walmarts and McDonald's a few years ago _*start off workers at $15 ~ $17 bucks an hour?*_
> 
> 
> I will wait for you to ignore the questions again.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fuck mickey d's, we're talking about farm workers ...
> 
> 
> Orange growers take bids from contractors to have an orchard harvested. The work is done on a timeline. Fruits and veggies are perishable. Low bid fastest harvest time gets the contract. Contractors hire workers to finish the job for x$ in xdays and leave enough on the table for them to make a profit. Its called price control, and the price is controlled from square one with the farmer on down the line to consumers.
> 
> now, go pick dingleberrys out of your ass.
Click to expand...


That isn't price controls, moron.  the laws of supply and demand are still in play.  The contracts are based on what the price of labor is, not visa a versa.

Face it, you're incapable of committing logic.


----------



## Never3ndr

bripat9643 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for regurgitating all the discredited Leftwing talking points.  We have already heard them at least 1000 times, and we knew they were lies years ago.  I won't even waste my time disputing them.
Click to expand...

I like how you claim that there is no debate...I put up the "talking points" that are literally the center of the debate.  And you stomp your feet with your fingers in your ears saying you aren't going to dispute them.  

Seems like another normal post from our local anarchist.  Ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your belief set.


----------



## Never3ndr

bear513 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...

Read my post, I actually address your point in there.  In case you missed it...automation.  If it can't be automated but can be outsourced...then it will be outsourced.  Labor is a large part of costs for businesses and there is no reason to pay your happy ass $20 when they can have a machine do it or move it to  place where they pay somebody $5.  Again, when you see talk of raising the minimal wage you see a lot of counters by companies by having them start moving towards more automation.  If you raise their labor costs, especially in low profit margin businesses, you force them to find new ways to decrease that labor cost...you don't necessarily force them to simply have the same labor force and raise consumer prices.  

If you are a conservative this should actually play right into your correct counter to raising minimal wage...raise wages you raise unemployment it is one of the basics of economics, which it sounds like you may need a refresher in.


----------



## bripat9643

Never3ndr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for regurgitating all the discredited Leftwing talking points.  We have already heard them at least 1000 times, and we knew they were lies years ago.  I won't even waste my time disputing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how you claim that there is no debate...I put up the "talking points" that are literally the center of the debate.  And you stomp your feet with your fingers in your ears saying you aren't going to dispute them.
> 
> Seems like another normal post from our local anarchist.  Ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your belief set.
Click to expand...



You put up lies and bullshit that honest people have to knock down.

That's all.  The fact that you refuse to lie down when you're dead doesn't make your lies "the center of the debate."


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> .
> .
Click to expand...


As always you don't what you are taking about. Try to be realistic. You have a job correcto? Are you saying ----------- that you are giving up your job and go work on those farms as part timers? How many Americans do you think are willing to take those jobs? Maybe by 100,000 at the minimum but not 20 millions.
Those lazy Americans that are on welfare or disability--------- Are they willing to give those up and look for babysitters, busses and other transportation to get to those farms or cleaning houses?  
Can you please answer those questions?


----------



## Never3ndr

bripat9643 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for regurgitating all the discredited Leftwing talking points.  We have already heard them at least 1000 times, and we knew they were lies years ago.  I won't even waste my time disputing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how you claim that there is no debate...I put up the "talking points" that are literally the center of the debate.  And you stomp your feet with your fingers in your ears saying you aren't going to dispute them.
> 
> Seems like another normal post from our local anarchist.  Ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your belief set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You put up lies and bullshit that honest people have to knock down.
> 
> That's all.  The fact that you refuse to lie down when you're dead doesn't make your lies "the center of the debate."
Click to expand...

You sound like a flat earther.  Just because you don't believe that the counter points are "true" doesn't make your fantastical view of the world real.  What it really means is that you are running away from a debate because you simply don't "believe" something rather working from a neutral standpoint, evaluating the facts, and THEN coming to an objective conclusion.


----------



## Siete

bripat9643 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> you would be picking dingleberrys out of your crack because nobody is paying anyone $20 an hour to pick ANYTHING, and if they did you wouldn't be able to afford them.
> 
> 
> man o man, RW's are morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?
> 
> Answer the question yes or No?
> 
> 
> Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?
> 
> 
> Answer the question yes or no?
> 
> It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you dont get shit do you.
> 
> 
> why does wmart pay min wage dumbass ?   they have plenty of demand.
> 
> 
> I actually saw an hour special on Florida Orange Growers. They dont pay by the hour. They pay by load, and workers have quotas. Your candy ass wouldn't last until lunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't want to answer my questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Again why did some Walmarts and McDonald's a few years ago _*start off workers at $15 ~ $17 bucks an hour?*_
> 
> 
> I will wait for you to ignore the questions again.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fuck mickey d's, we're talking about farm workers ...
> 
> 
> Orange growers take bids from contractors to have an orchard harvested. The work is done on a timeline. Fruits and veggies are perishable. Low bid fastest harvest time gets the contract. Contractors hire workers to finish the job for x$ in xdays and leave enough on the table for them to make a profit. Its called price control, and the price is controlled from square one with the farmer on down the line to consumers.
> 
> now, go pick dingleberrys out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't price controls, moron.  the laws of supply and demand are still in play.  The contracts are based on what the price of labor is, not visa a versa.
> 
> Face it, you're incapable of committing logic.
Click to expand...


do you have any idea what price control is ?

ok, lets use Mickey D's, and supply/demand


if they didnt control the price of their product and stay competitive in the market they would go out of business ... they know down to the cent how much it costs them to sell a burger//get their products to the customer,// sell the products out the door cost, and what their margin is.


Gomer picks dingleberrys, and you eat them Bipatty.


----------



## Wyatt earp

charwin95 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always you don't what you are taking about. Try to be realistic. You have a job correcto? Are you saying ----------- that you are giving up your job and go work on those farms as part timers? How many Americans do you think are willing to take those jobs? Maybe by 100,000 at the minimum but not 20 millions.
> Those lazy Americans that are on welfare or disability--------- Are they willing to give those up and look for babysitters, busses and other transportation to get to those farms or cleaning houses?
> Can you please answer those questions?
Click to expand...



Oh god this goes right over your head doesn't it?

I was using it as an example..



It goes for any low skilled job ....that used to pay good wages, with benefits ..


----------



## Wyatt earp

Never3ndr said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for regurgitating all the discredited Leftwing talking points.  We have already heard them at least 1000 times, and we knew they were lies years ago.  I won't even waste my time disputing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how you claim that there is no debate...I put up the "talking points" that are literally the center of the debate.  And you stomp your feet with your fingers in your ears saying you aren't going to dispute them.
> 
> Seems like another normal post from our local anarchist.  Ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your belief set.
Click to expand...




Their is no debate ..if you pay someone enough money , you will have plenty of people that want the job...

.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would lebron James still be making 4O million a year if 5,000 illegals come in to America that could play as good as him ?
> 
> Answer the question yes or No?
> 
> 
> Would diamonds be as valuable as it is now , if soms one found a huge quarry of it the size of Alaska ?
> 
> 
> Answer the question yes or no?
> 
> It's supply and demand get rid of 20 million illegals and wages/ benefits would go up for the poor workers ...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you dont get shit do you.
> 
> 
> why does wmart pay min wage dumbass ?   they have plenty of demand.
> 
> 
> I actually saw an hour special on Florida Orange Growers. They dont pay by the hour. They pay by load, and workers have quotas. Your candy ass wouldn't last until lunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't want to answer my questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Again why did some Walmarts and McDonald's a few years ago _*start off workers at $15 ~ $17 bucks an hour?*_
> 
> 
> I will wait for you to ignore the questions again.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fuck mickey d's, we're talking about farm workers ...
> 
> 
> Orange growers take bids from contractors to have an orchard harvested. The work is done on a timeline. Fruits and veggies are perishable. Low bid fastest harvest time gets the contract. Contractors hire workers to finish the job for x$ in xdays and leave enough on the table for them to make a profit. Its called price control, and the price is controlled from square one with the farmer on down the line to consumers.
> 
> now, go pick dingleberrys out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't price controls, moron.  the laws of supply and demand are still in play.  The contracts are based on what the price of labor is, not visa a versa.
> 
> Face it, you're incapable of committing logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you have any idea what price control is ?
> 
> ok, lets use Mickey D's, and supply/demand
> 
> 
> if they didnt control the price of their product and stay competitive in the market they would go out of business ... they know down to the cent how much it costs them to sell a burger//get their products to the customer,// sell the products out the door cost, and what their margin is.
> 
> 
> Gomer picks dingleberrys, and you eat them Bipatty.
Click to expand...



Nope you refuse to acknowledge facts that it's based on the cost of labor..


.


----------



## Never3ndr

bear513 said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for regurgitating all the discredited Leftwing talking points.  We have already heard them at least 1000 times, and we knew they were lies years ago.  I won't even waste my time disputing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how you claim that there is no debate...I put up the "talking points" that are literally the center of the debate.  And you stomp your feet with your fingers in your ears saying you aren't going to dispute them.
> 
> Seems like another normal post from our local anarchist.  Ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your belief set.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their is no debate ..if you pay someone enough money , you will have plenty of people that want the job...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You referenced the basic supply and demand model in a previous post but it seems you actually have no clue what that model refers to.  If you raise wages you increase labor supply, but you also DECREASE labor demand.  What that equates to is that if your wages are high enough you may have a lot of people wanting to "pick apples."  However, you won't find many companies that have job openings for that.  They will automate those jobs or outsource them.  You cannot reference a model where there are only two considerations (supply and demand) and totally ignore half of the model just because it doesn't fit your ideology.  The least you could do is make some objective sense.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only brain damaged morons would dispute it.  Logically, it isn't disputable.
Click to expand...

We are First Worlders, and have to come up with a better excuse.

America has 5.8 million job openings

You can't have it, both ways.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only brain damaged morons would dispute it.  Logically, it isn't disputable.
Click to expand...






Perhaps you don't understand logic. Think about it again.


----------



## Bush92

Jobs program. Build that wall!


----------



## charwin95

bear513 said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it benefits "the economy,"  a meangless abstractiin,  isn't the issue.  Whether it benefits American citizens is the issue,  and clearly it doesn"t.  Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it is pretty damn debatable.  Many illegal immigrants take jobs that American workers literally cannot take.  Meaning they work hours, wages, and in conditions that no American worker would.  For the rest of them, they take low paying jobs with minimal screening (like burger flipping, construction, or housekeeping).  There is actually discussion to increase wages for these jobs to working wages, which would counteract the lower pressure on wages put on by the influx of low-skilled labor.  You know what the corporation's answer for that is?  Automation.
> 
> The reality is that the low skilled illegal and legal migrants from Mexico / central America puts a lot of pressure on our lower skilled labor pool.  However, it also benefits absolutely every American citizen in the US with decreased labor costs...which, for those types of jobs, typically make up and extremely large portion of costs for a business.  Assuming that you adhere to capitalism, this actually is just the marketplace at work.  Americans should take advantage of the education system that those other places simply do not have.  If they fail to take advantage of the free economic opportunity they are afforded, it is pretty straight forward that they should suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Once again supply and demand, get rid of 20 million illegals , wages would rise I would pick apples for $20 bucks an hour..
> 
> 
> People still like apples, Apple pie, Apple whine , apple juice and who can ever ever eat pork chops with out Apple sauce?
> 
> .
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As always you don't what you are taking about. Try to be realistic. You have a job correcto? Are you saying ----------- that you are giving up your job and go work on those farms as part timers? How many Americans do you think are willing to take those jobs? Maybe by 100,000 at the minimum but not 20 millions.
> Those lazy Americans that are on welfare or disability--------- Are they willing to give those up and look for babysitters, busses and other transportation to get to those farms or cleaning houses?
> Can you please answer those questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god this goes right over your head doesn't it?
> 
> I was using it as an example..
> 
> 
> 
> It goes for any low skilled job ....that used to pay good wages, with benefits ..
Click to expand...


Aw shut the fuck up dude. You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only brain damaged morons would dispute it.  Logically, it isn't disputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand logic. Think about it again.
Click to expand...


I understand it as much as it's possible to understand it.

Tell us, if a job doesn't go to an immigrant, then who does it go to?


----------



## danielpalos

Bush92 said:


> Jobs program. Build that wall!


Better _aqueducts_ and better _roads_; even with gun lovers doing it on a for-profit basis!


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> 
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only brain damaged morons would dispute it.  Logically, it isn't disputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand logic. Think about it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it as much as it's possible to understand it.
> 
> Tell us, if a job doesn't go to an immigrant, then who does it go to?
Click to expand...

did you miss, "the memo"?

America has 5.8 million job openings


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fact is the first number and that's probably low.
> 
> All studies of migrant workers have shown a benefit to the economy, especially in Texas.
> 
> So yet another ignorant bigot post bripig.
> 
> 
> 
> ......Every immigrant takes an American job and lowers the wages paid to the rest.  That fact simply isn't debatable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only brain damaged morons would dispute it.  Logically, it isn't disputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand logic. Think about it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it as much as it's possible to understand it.
> 
> Tell us, if a job doesn't go to an immigrant, then who does it go to?
Click to expand...





Many go unfilled each year, genius.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Mostly Fake News B.S.!


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.


----------



## danielpalos

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.


Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.  

Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.
Click to expand...

Confused, much?


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confused, much?
Click to expand...

No, I have a solution, unlike the slackers on the right wing.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confused, much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a solution, unlike the slackers on the right wing.
Click to expand...


Letting the barbarians at the gate come in and sack the country isn't a "solution."


----------



## KissMy

*The OP is FAKE NEWS!
I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*


----------



## Clementine

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.




No matter how you look at it, the cost of a wall and more border security is far cheaper than a single year of paying for illegal aliens to be here.

We need to take away the incentive for them to come here.   No benefits.   No automatic citizenship for babies when the parents are not citizens    No free anything.    If they are unable to come and take advantage of us, they won't come.   As it is, the sanctuary cities protect all of them, even the criminals.    They get welfare after they get free medical to have anchor babies.   Their kids get free school and everything else.    Why would they not come here when there are so many perks to entering illegally?


----------



## danielpalos

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confused, much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a solution, unlike the slackers on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Letting the barbarians at the gate come in and sack the country isn't a "solution."
Click to expand...

You are just clueless and Causeless, like the right wing.  

We have the largest economy in the entire world.  That means, even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is the problem.


----------



## danielpalos

Clementine said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you look at it, the cost of a wall and more border security is far cheaper than a single year of paying for illegal aliens to be here.
> 
> We need to take away the incentive for them to come here.   No benefits.   No automatic citizenship for babies when the parents are not citizens    No free anything.    If they are unable to come and take advantage of us, they won't come.   As it is, the sanctuary cities protect all of them, even the criminals.    They get welfare after they get free medical to have anchor babies.   Their kids get free school and everything else.    Why would they not come here when there are so many perks to entering illegally?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  We have the largest economy in the entire world, even with illegal immigration.  Those studies are merely, special pleading.


----------



## bodecea

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Is it true you are giving up your food stamps for this wall?


----------



## deanrd

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


I'm surprised you had the nerve to post such an embarrassing link. 
This is the picture they used:






Another article was "The myth of the Gender Pay Gap".

Now what is especially hilarious is an ad for, get this, an "immigration attorney".

This site might as well have been Breitbart or Fox.

Remember right wingers, you post a link, we go and look at it.

Many of the so called links in the article lead back to that website.  And others go to sites like:   Federation for American Immigration Reform.
because of course,they would be so honest.

Then you have all those farm workers, never mentioned, who pick fruits and vegetables.  Without them, the price of fruits and vegatables would skyrocket.  Then these right wingers would be whining about that.


----------



## danielpalos

Why should anyone take the right wing seriously about economics?


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want to put a trumped up (no pun intended) price on America's sovereignty and survival.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confused, much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a solution, unlike the slackers on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Letting the barbarians at the gate come in and sack the country isn't a "solution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just clueless and Causeless, like the right wing.
> 
> We have the largest economy in the entire world.  That means, even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is the problem.
Click to expand...

Actually, what that means is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## Reasonable

Your stupid wall will not be built. 
It will be similar to another of your fat ass' promise: Ill repeal and replace Obamacare on DAY ONE with something better and EVERYONE will be covered, 
The Liar also added" I won't cut Medicaid or Medicare."

Not one trump whore has had the balls to call him out on his lies. 
Not one.,


----------



## Reasonable

Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them. 
Was this fact figured in with the economics? 
Of course not.,


----------



## Spare_change

Reasonable said:


> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> Was this fact figured in with the economics?
> Of course not.,


Guess that's what happens when you don't want to pay a decent wage .. stuff just doesn't get done.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Reasonable said:


> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.



Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.


----------



## BrokeLoser

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY...pry the bong and 40oz from the lips of our lazy, baby making filthy lowlifes and make them labor for their free shit....get our incarcerated piece of shits out there as well.
WIN, WIN, WIN.....everybody wins!


----------



## danielpalos

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals want a liberal solution that conforms to our Commerce Clause.
> 
> Nothing but repeal, is only for the right wing.   Demonstrations are what they are best at.
> 
> 
> 
> Confused, much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have a solution, unlike the slackers on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Letting the barbarians at the gate come in and sack the country isn't a "solution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just clueless and Causeless, like the right wing.
> 
> We have the largest economy in the entire world.  That means, even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, what that means is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Click to expand...

lol.  Only the clueless and Causeless say that; the rest have a good argument.

You are just clueless and Causeless, like the right wing.

We have the largest economy in the entire world. That means, even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is the problem.

My alternate screenname is WholeDollar, not sparechange.


----------



## danielpalos

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
Click to expand...

Gotta' love right wing socialism on a national basis. 

The law is, employment at will; not (wage) slavery since the end of our Civil War.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

danielpalos said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta' love right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> The law is, employment at will; not (wage) slavery since the end of our Civil War.
Click to expand...


Or we can completely scrap welfare and pass on the savings to the taxpayers if you prefer.


----------



## danielpalos

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta' love right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> The law is, employment at will; not (wage) slavery since the end of our Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we can completely scrap welfare and pass on the savings to the taxpayers if you prefer.
Click to expand...

I prefer to scrap the drug war to pay for health care.  How about the right wing?


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

danielpalos said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta' love right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> The law is, employment at will; not (wage) slavery since the end of our Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we can completely scrap welfare and pass on the savings to the taxpayers if you prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to scrap the drug war to pay for health care.  How about the right wing?
Click to expand...


I'm all for scrapping the drug war, but pay for your own goddamn healthcare.


----------



## danielpalos

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta' love right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> The law is, employment at will; not (wage) slavery since the end of our Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we can completely scrap welfare and pass on the savings to the taxpayers if you prefer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to scrap the drug war to pay for health care.  How about the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for scrapping the drug war, but pay for your own goddamn healthcare.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your support for ending the drug war.


----------



## deanrd

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
Click to expand...

Your kind already has a history of marching the unwilling and MAKING them do things.






It only turned out well to your kind.


----------



## bripat9643

deanrd said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your kind already has a history of marching the unwilling and MAKING them do things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only turned out well to your kind.
Click to expand...

Your kind are the ones responsible for the above, asshole.


----------



## Kondor3

No wall is necessary, nor sustainable over time...

1. start (metaphorically, in the law-courts) crucifying employers of Illegal Aliens

2. stop wire-transfers of money to Mexico and other countries substantively represented within the Illegal Alien population

3. make it illegal to employ or rent-to or sell-to or house or transport or shelter or educate or medically treat Illegal Aliens, and put teeth into the enforcement of such illegality

Do such things, and Illegals will fall all over each other, scrambling for the border, and they will not be back, and they will spread the word to others, not to try it... no point.


----------



## KissMy

Kondor3 said:


> No wall is necessary, nor sustainable over time...
> 
> 1. start (metaphorically, in the law-courts) crucifying employers of Illegal Aliens
> 
> 2. stop wire-transfers of money to Mexico and other countries substantively represented within the Illegal Alien population
> 
> 3. make it illegal to employ or rent-to or sell-to or house or transport or shelter or educate or medically treat Illegal Aliens, and put teeth into the enforcement of such illegality
> 
> Do such things, and Illegals will fall all over each other, scrambling for the border, and they will not be back, and they will spread the word to others, not to try it... no point.



You are clueless! It's already illegal to employ illegals. But the measly little fine doesn't even slow employers down because they save 10 times that amount annually per illegal they employ. The fine is low & not even enforced because congress & courts wants it that way. They just spend Billions annually on Border Patrol, yet prevent them from stopping illegals. It's a huge scam to get more of their friends into Border Patrol Pension Fund Retirements.


----------



## Spare_change

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confused, much?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have a solution, unlike the slackers on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Letting the barbarians at the gate come in and sack the country isn't a "solution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just clueless and Causeless, like the right wing.
> 
> We have the largest economy in the entire world.  That means, even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, what that means is you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Only the clueless and Causeless say that; the rest have a good argument.
> 
> You are just clueless and Causeless, like the right wing.
> 
> We have the largest economy in the entire world. That means, even illegal immigration is not the problem; lousy management is the problem.
> 
> My alternate screenname is WholeDollar, not sparechange.
Click to expand...

Aww, isn't he ever so cute ... he made fun of my screen name. Guess that makes him a winner .... to his Grammy!!!!


----------



## Kondor3

KissMy said:


> ...You are clueless! It's already illegal to employ illegals...


Perhaps you missed "..._and put teeth into the enforcement of such illegality._"



> ...But the measly little fine doesn't even slow employers down because they save 10 times that amount annually per illegal they employ...


Which is why I called for us to: "_start (metaphorically, in the law courts) crucifying employers of Illegal Aliens_".



> ...The fine is low & not even enforced because congress & courts wants it that way...


The Republican Party wants millions of Illegal Aliens to take advantage of wages at near-slave levels, for people who don't dare organize or speak-up.

The Democratic Party wants millions of Illegal Aliens, to give them a "path to citizenship", so that they end-up with legions of grateful future Democratic Voters.

Neither party is on the side of the American Worker.



> ...They just spend Billions annually on Border Patrol, yet prevent them from stopping illegals. It's a huge scam to get more of their friends into Border Patrol Pension Fund Retirements.


Yep... window-dressing, more than an effective strategy... another reason not to trust a government to spend billions for a wall that won't work.

Show us you're serious about enforcing the sovereignty of US borders and enforcing US immigration law, and the rest of us will think about it.


----------



## Issa

I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.


KissMy said:


> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*


----------



## Spare_change

Issa said:


> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
Click to expand...

I used to live in LA, and you need to get out of Beverly Hills or Simi Valley.


----------



## Issa

For what?



Spare_change said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to live in LA, and you need to get out of Beverly Hills or Simi Valley.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spare_change

Issa said:


> For what?
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to live in LA, and you need to get out of Beverly Hills or Simi Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

... so you can see all the Latinos hanging out at on-ramps.


----------



## deanrd

bripat9643 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your kind already has a history of marching the unwilling and MAKING them do things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only turned out well to your kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your kind are the ones responsible for the above, asshole.
Click to expand...

No.  Nazi's are part of the GOP.  Just like the Russians.


----------



## bripat9643

deanrd said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your kind already has a history of marching the unwilling and MAKING them do things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only turned out well to your kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your kind are the ones responsible for the above, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Nazi's are part of the GOP.  Just like the Russians.
Click to expand...

No they aren't, you lying douche bag.  Democrats are the only party that ever openly expressed admiration for the Nazi party, or for the Soviet Union.


----------



## BrokeLoser

Issa said:


> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
Click to expand...


You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
"*I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"*
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.


----------



## Issa

You don't have to go personal to prove your point.
I'm not Mexican but it would be an honor to be, great culture, nice people and good food. Better than being a racist greedy grump any day.
Selling flowers requires skill, patience and hard work I applaud that.
Illegals do pay taxes and won't reap the benefits of AS for example, hence they pay more than the orange in office.
Summary....the US without Mexicans or Latinos and other legal and illegals immigrants wouldn't be as great....if you do.t like it go back to  Europe. Oh hold you might not like it there , they are too nice towards immigrants.


BrokeLoser said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
> I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
> "*I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"*
> Let me break this down for:
> The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.
Click to expand...


----------



## KissMy

BrokeLoser said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
> I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
> "*I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"*
> Let me break this down for:
> The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.
Click to expand...


Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.

The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.

If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc.


----------



## KissMy

I have several Mexican friends own companies that mostly employ illegals. They say when an illegal shows up in the USA, they have a job the very next day. None of the illegals they have met make less than $36k/yr. They all work hard all day, every day. Sick or pregnant poor do not undertake the harsh trip into the USA for medical care and hard labor jobs.

Medical tourism is done by affluent foreigners who pre-pay for their flight, medical, birth, stay at a local resort, vacation, tour and shop.


----------



## RASTAMEN

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly Fake News B.S.!
Click to expand...

Trump's 35 percent approval rating isn't fake news.


----------



## RASTAMEN

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true you are giving up your food stamps for this wall?
Click to expand...

When will Trump ask for help from President Obama for his falling Job approval rating!!!!


----------



## bitter clinging swiftie

KissMy said:


> I have several Mexican friends own companies that mostly employ illegals. They say when an illegal shows up in the USA, they have a job the very next day. None of the illegals they have met make less than $36k/yr. They all work hard all day, every day. Sick or pregnant poor do not undertake the harsh trip into the USA for medical care and hard labor jobs.
> 
> Medical tourism is done by affluent foreigners who pre-pay for their flight, medical, birth, stay at a local resort, vacation, tour and shop.


I know some Mexican-Americans that own landscaping and home improvement businesses and the illegals they employ are generally guatamalan and el salvadorian


----------



## RASTAMEN

BrokeLoser said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXACTLY...pry the bong and 40oz from the lips of our lazy, baby making filthy lowlifes and make them labor for their free shit....get our incarcerated piece of shits out there as well.
> WIN, WIN, WIN.....everybody wins!
Click to expand...

Why do you speak about Red State conservatives and conservatism in such a Foul  way?  I guess 100 years of conservative Incest and Inbreeding isn't good for white conservatives......oh well.


----------



## Siete

free, no wall.

suck that


----------



## RASTAMEN

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta' love right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> The law is, employment at will; not (wage) slavery since the end of our Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or we can completely scrap welfare and pass on the savings to the taxpayers if you prefer.
Click to expand...

But...but Red State White Conservatives "Love" Their Welfare!!!  We don't want red state voting white conservatives to go on a raping spree b/c they lost their WELFARE.


----------



## RASTAMEN

Issa said:


> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
Click to expand...


----------



## KissMy

Mooching no skills illegals!


----------



## USApatriotz

God I hope we get the wall!!


----------



## RASTAMEN

USApatriotz said:


> God I hope we get the wall!!


YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.......YOU ARE TRUMPANZEE--PUTIN SUPPORTER.


----------



## P@triot

RASTAMEN said:


> USApatriotz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hope we get the wall!!
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.......YOU ARE TRUMPANZEE--PUTIN SUPPORTER.
Click to expand...

No..._you_ are *not* an American. Anyone who wants to surrender U.S. sovereignty, shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution, spouts anti-American sentiments, and supports the invasion of the U.S. with the intent to destroy it - as you do - is *not* an American.


----------



## P@triot

USApatriotz said:


> God I hope we get the wall!!


Amen, brother! Amen! If we don't, there will be hell to pay for the Republican Party. You can bet the Dumbocrats will recapture FULL control of the House, the Senate, and the White House like 2009 if the Republican Party doesn't build the wall and repeal Obamacare.

That is exactly what they were sent to Washington to do, by the American people. They better damn well do it or they will regret it.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> Mooching no skills illegals!



1. Awe...did the irrational, emotional, progressive fall for the heart-tugging story (_again_)? The weak minded is so easy to dupe.

2. To the young girl in the video...you are not an "undocumented immigrant". You are an *illegal* _alien_.

3. I don't care if an illegal alien doesn't mooch off of society or has skills. What I care about is that they broke the law. They are criminals.

You can post sob-stories until your fingers are sore and your pc is smoking. It won't have an ounce of effect on me. Criminal activity is criminal activity and I will ensure the sovereignty of the U.S. until my dying breath.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> I have several Mexican friends own companies that mostly employ illegals. They say *when an illegal shows up* in the USA, *they have a job the very next day*.


Exactly. Leaving one more American without a job and forcing them onto the government social programs that are _killing_ this nation.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> They all work hard all day, every day.


I respect that. I really do. And they can work hard all day, every day, in Mexico. Where they belong. In fact, they should make themselves hats which say:

*Hacer grandes de Nuevo México!*​


----------



## RASTAMEN

P@triot said:


> RASTAMEN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USApatriotz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hope we get the wall!!
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.......YOU ARE TRUMPANZEE--PUTIN SUPPORTER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No..._you_ are *not* an American. Anyone who wants to surrender U.S. sovereignty, shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution, spouts anti-American sentiments, and supports the invasion of the U.S. with the intent to destroy it - as you do - is *not* an American.
Click to expand...

What you spout is exactly what Trump and Red State White Conservatives have done with American Sovereignty with Putin and RUSSIA!!!  You best belive.....Puttin is still Russian KGB and used Russian Cyber Security attacks on our elections to elect Trump.  In Puttin has black mailable evidence to use against Trump.  In fact, Russia-Puttin saw Trump as a "Mark" back in 2013 and has been using Trump.  Follow the Money!

Trump is simply a Traitor to America and so is Red State White conservative voters who voted for Trump.

DRIP--DRIP.  Trump has a RUSSIA Problem and the next 3.5 years, Trump will be under investigation.......


----------



## RASTAMEN

P@triot said:


> USApatriotz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hope we get the wall!!
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, brother! Amen! If we don't, there will be hell to pay for the Republican Party. You can bet the Dumbocrats will recapture FULL control of the House, the Senate, and the White House like 2009 if the Republican Party doesn't build the wall and repeal Obamacare.
> 
> That is exactly what they were sent to Washington to do, by the American people. They better damn well do it or they will regret it.
Click to expand...

The Republican Party can't GOVERN for ALL the People.  Never have....Never will.


----------



## KissMy

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mooching no skills illegals!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Awe...did the irrational, emotional, progressive fall for the heart-tugging story (_again_)? The weak minded is so easy to dupe.
> 
> 2. To the young girl in the video...you are not an "undocumented immigrant". You are an *illegal* _alien_.
> 
> 3. I don't care if an illegal alien doesn't mooch off of society or has skills. What I care about is that they broke the law. They are criminals.
> 
> You can post sob-stories until your fingers are sore and your pc is smoking. It won't have an ounce of effect on me. Criminal activity is criminal activity and I will ensure the sovereignty of the U.S. until my dying breath.
Click to expand...


You pathetic retard!

1. Larissa Martinez did not cross the border illegally intending to defraud the United States. She was a little girl taken to the United States. Children 12 and under are not responsible for anything illegal. It's not ethical for her to be punished for a decision she did not make. She did not break the law  She is not a criminal.

2. Many people have no recourse to becoming legal immigrants. Is she undocumented simply because she didn't want to do the immigration paperwork? No! She is still waiting 7 years & most likely will been denied. So, what could we have expected Miss Martinez to do? Leave her home in the US and return to Mexico by herself?

3. In regards to her continuing to get a "free ride" with her university scholarship to Yale...well, even if she had applied to Yale from Mexico or another country she still would have gotten the scholarship because Ivy League universities and some others have the policy of assuring that all accepted students are provided with the resources to attend if they do not have the money to do so.

4. "Money has been wasted or stolen by her studying in Texas as an undocumented student": after her graduation from Yale can we seriously believe that she was going to move on to foodstamps and a welfare check? We can safely assume that Miss Martinez was going to have a stellar career and pay a lot of taxes throughout her lifetime thereby contributing much more to the US economy through money and ideas than what her schooling days cost.

5. We can congratulate her on her honesty in come out so openly but by doing so she has helped to bring to the forefront an issue that is underlying life for more people in the United States than many may suspect. She is not nor has been the only valedictorian in this situation.

6.  Yale university's website states Yale seeks “those who would make the most of the extraordinary resources assembled here, those with a zest to stretch the limits of their talents, and those with an outstanding public motivation — in other words, applicants with a concern for something larger than themselves.”

“Being undocumented obviously would not disqualify anyone,” Yale spokesman Tom Conroy told VOA. About one in every 10 current undergraduates is an international student — those who, in most cases, apply from abroad and travel to the U.S. from their home countries.

7. There are not a limited number of jobs in the USA. She took no US job from anyone. In fact she created jobs for teachers. She will undoubtedly be a job creator her entire life.

8. Like most foreigners, she arrived in the USA by plane, so the border wall would not have even been an obstacle to slow her down.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> RASTAMEN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USApatriotz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hope we get the wall!!
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.......YOU ARE TRUMPANZEE--PUTIN SUPPORTER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No..._you_ are *not* an American. Anyone who wants to surrender U.S. sovereignty, shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution, spouts anti-American sentiments, and supports the invasion of the U.S. with the intent to destroy it - as you do - is *not* an American.
Click to expand...

End our illegal problem with the sovereignty of our Commerce Clause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mooching no skills illegals!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Awe...did the irrational, emotional, progressive fall for the heart-tugging story (_again_)? The weak minded is so easy to dupe.
> 
> 2. To the young girl in the video...you are not an "undocumented immigrant". You are an *illegal* _alien_.
> 
> 3. I don't care if an illegal alien doesn't mooch off of society or has skills. What I care about is that they broke the law. They are criminals.
> 
> You can post sob-stories until your fingers are sore and your pc is smoking. It won't have an ounce of effect on me. Criminal activity is criminal activity and I will ensure the sovereignty of the U.S. until my dying breath.
Click to expand...

10USC246 is federal law, let's start rounding up illegals who are not Patriotic enough to muster.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or morals; because, the right wing is mostly all political talk and no political action.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have several Mexican friends own companies that mostly employ illegals. They say *when an illegal shows up* in the USA, *they have a job the very next day*.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Leaving one more American without a job and forcing them onto the government social programs that are _killing_ this nation.
Click to expand...

That is only because, y'all have nothing but repeal.

Government social programs should be filling these positions:

America has near record 5.8 million job openings


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They all work hard all day, every day.
> 
> 
> 
> I respect that. I really do. And they can work hard all day, every day, in Mexico. Where they belong. In fact, they should make themselves hats which say:
> 
> *Hacer grandes de Nuevo México!*​
Click to expand...

Europe did not need Hitler; why are y'all, over here?


----------



## BrokeLoser

RASTAMEN said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now millions of acres of fruits and vegetables are rotting on the vines because there's no one to pick them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easily remedied. Make unemployed people on welfare/food stamps work in the fields unless they have a medically documented disability that prevents such work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXACTLY...pry the bong and 40oz from the lips of our lazy, baby making filthy lowlifes and make them labor for their free shit....get our incarcerated piece of shits out there as well.
> WIN, WIN, WIN.....everybody wins!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you speak about Red State conservatives and conservatism in such a Foul  way?  I guess 100 years of conservative Incest and Inbreeding isn't good for white conservatives......oh well.
Click to expand...


NEGATIVE...try again.
I aim to enlighten the ignorant, self manipulated, confused and uninformed. You're welcome in advance.
21.3% of US Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
*Who Participated in Welfare?
The black population:* At 41.6 percent, blacks were more likely to participate in government assistance programs in an average month.
The black participation rate was followed by Hispanics at 36.4 percent, Asians or Pacific Islanders at 17.8 percent, and non-Hispanic whites at 13.2 percent.
Help me here....Are Blacks and Hispanics Republicans?

*California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients.*
Note that Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....also note all three are blue states. Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.
However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state.


----------



## BrokeLoser

KissMy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
> I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
> "*I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"*
> Let me break this down for:
> The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
> 
> The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
> 
> If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc.
Click to expand...


*First things first....What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you stole from and been fed by REAL American's?*
"Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
I think you mean the "American taxpayer funded"...right?
*These silver tooth anchors you speak of are here by illegal means and should not be granted citizenship. We desperately need a rewrite of the 14th. Further, the "free shit" program is not working...few become positive contributing, tax paying citizens...many become incarcerated and many become pet humans to taxpayers.*

The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
*50k per year...huh? All their assets...huh?
What, their rabid pit bulls? Their Dodgers and Raiders collections? Their beat up piece of shit Toyota Corolla? Their bright yellow shithole house?
What fantasy land are you in...haha...that's funny shit. None of your beloved cockroaches make 50k per year. No English and no iQ = no communication skills = no income. Easy shit.*

If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc
*Nah, I prefer to support a giant wall, a rewrite of the 14th and zero tolerance against third world filth coming here and robbing REAL American's....TA-DA! What else can I teach you.*


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> End our illegal problem with the sovereignty of our Commerce Clause.


You can't end crime with your bat-shit crazy interpretation of the "Commerce Clause".


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> 10USC246 is federal law, let's start rounding up illegals who are not Patriotic enough to muster.


Oh you irrational little snowflake - we've been down this road before. You Google federal laws and have absolutely no clue what you are looking at. This is when you were laughed off of the board for posting a law from 1995 while ignoring what it said in 2017: here #1434 and here #1439

There is nothing worse than Google Lawyers. Little Daniel here doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about. He Google's stuff and posts it *without* reading it. He couldn't even read the top to see that his link was from January 4, 1995 while mine was law from 2017 (and that was at the very top).


----------



## KissMy

BrokeLoser said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
> I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
> "*I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"*
> Let me break this down for:
> The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
> 
> The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
> 
> If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First things first....What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you stole from and been fed by REAL American's?*
> "Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
> I think you mean the "American taxpayer funded"...right?
> *These silver tooth anchors you speak of are here by illegal means and should not be granted citizenship. We desperately need a rewrite of the 14th. Further, the "free shit" program is not working...few become positive contributing, tax paying citizens...many become incarcerated and many become pet humans to taxpayers.*
> 
> The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
> *50k per year...huh? All their assets...huh?
> What, their rabid pit bulls? Their Dodgers and Raiders collections? Their beat up piece of shit Toyota Corolla? Their bright yellow shithole house?
> What fantasy land are you in...haha...that's funny shit. None of your beloved cockroaches make 50k per year. No English and no iQ = no communication skills = no income. Easy shit.*
> 
> If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc
> *Nah, I prefer to support a giant wall, a rewrite of the 14th and zero tolerance against third world filth coming here and robbing REAL American's....TA-DA! What else can I teach you.*
Click to expand...


You are far beyond stupid. Your side lost the civil war, therefore the 14th will never be rewritten. Repubtards invited them in to crush wages in the first place. Now that we spent money educating their US citizen kids, you retards want to ship them out before they get a job to pay us back. You stupid big government scum strip citizens of wealth & rights destroying our country.

Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 shipped out the USA manufacturing jobs. Clinton & Obama saved them.






It's beyond stupid we have to pay for 21,000 border patrol agents = 11 per mile + their corrupt lifetime government pensions & benefits. One BP agent can easily cover a half mile in each direction with binoculars, radio & rifle. So 1 agent per mile is plenty. 1,950 mile border only needs 1,950 agents.  Multiply times 4 for 24 hour watch, weekends & vacation = 7,800 agents.

Fire 13,200 BP agents & use that money to cut taxes & build a wall for immigrants to view as they fly over it. Not one more dime for border security. They are just wasting my money if illegals are getting past the current tax payer funded boondoggle of 21,000 Border Patrol Agents of Big Government!


----------



## KissMy

BrokeLoser said:


> *These silver tooth anchors you speak of are here by illegal means and should not be granted citizenship. We desperately need a rewrite of the 14th. Further, the "free shit" program is not working...few become positive contributing, tax paying citizens...many become incarcerated and many become pet humans to taxpayers.
> 50k per year...huh? All their assets...huh?
> What, their rabid pit bulls? Their Dodgers and Raiders collections? Their beat up piece of shit Toyota Corolla? Their bright yellow shithole house?
> What fantasy land are you in...haha...that's funny shit. None of your beloved cockroaches make 50k per year. No English and no iQ = no communication skills = no income. Easy shit.*



Prisons should be self funding rehabilitation facilities. Keep most of them off the tax payers dole.
The US drug / crime problem was caused by Republicans CIA Running & Pushing Drugs into our US cities to fund wars, Crime rates soared under Reagan Bush. Clinton dropped crime rates by more than any president in history!

Funny how the illegals on roofing crews around here drive $60K  pick-up trucks & Cadillac Escalades. None of them will show up for work for less than $100 cash or $150 check. Their employers can't find any for less & pay most of them more.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> *These silver tooth anchors you speak of are here by illegal means and should not be granted citizenship. We desperately need a rewrite of the 14th. Further, the "free shit" program is not working...few become positive contributing, tax paying citizens...many become incarcerated and many become pet humans to taxpayers.
> 50k per year...huh? All their assets...huh?
> What, their rabid pit bulls? Their Dodgers and Raiders collections? Their beat up piece of shit Toyota Corolla? Their bright yellow shithole house?
> What fantasy land are you in...haha...that's funny shit. None of your beloved cockroaches make 50k per year. No English and no iQ = no communication skills = no income. Easy shit.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prisons should be self funding rehabilitation facilities. Keep most of them off the tax payers dole.
> The US drug / crime problem was caused by Republicans CIA Running & Pushing Drugs into our US cities to fund wars, Crime rates soared under Reagan Bush. Clinton dropped crime rates by more than any president in history!
> 
> Funny how the illegals on roofing crews around here drive $60K  pick-up trucks & Cadillac Escalades. None of them will show up for work for less than $100 cash or $150 check. Their employers can't find any for less & pay most of them more.
Click to expand...

Horseshit.  Crime rates soared under previous administrations.  They started their decline under Reagan and Bush.

You just can't stop lying, can you, douche bag?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> End our illegal problem with the sovereignty of our Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't end crime with your bat-shit crazy interpretation of the "Commerce Clause".
Click to expand...

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.  You are admitting this cannot be solved by Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law, let's start rounding up illegals who are not Patriotic enough to muster.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you irrational little snowflake - we've been down this road before. You Google federal laws and have absolutely no clue what you are looking at. This is when you were laughed off of the board for posting a law from 1995 while ignoring what it said in 2017: here #1434 and here #1439
> 
> There is nothing worse than Google Lawyers. Little Daniel here doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about. He Google's stuff and posts it *without* reading it. He couldn't even read the top to see that his link was from January 4, 1995 while mine was law from 2017 (and that was at the very top).
Click to expand...

I updated my propaganda; why not update Yours.

10USC246 is federal law.  The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You are admitting this cannot be solved by Capitalism.


How can I "admit" to something which I *never* claimed? 

Snowflake..._you_ said capitalism would "solve" the problem because your ego mislead you into believing that you could appeal to our faith in that system and dupe us into your idiotic support of criminal activity.

Conservatives are well aware that capitalism *cannot* solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. Only the state can bring criminal charges.

You need to go back to the drawing board Daniel. Your desperate attempts at throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks is just not working.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I updated my propaganda;


A rare moment of honesty from a fascist. Interesting. I like it.

But this reality here is one of many reasons why you have no credibility. It is just propaganda - exactly as you said. You Google shit and post it without having a clue what you're looking at. You're uninformed about the subject matter at hand but you insist on posting about it anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are admitting this cannot be solved by Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I "admit" to something which I *never* claimed?
> 
> Snowflake..._you_ said capitalism would "solve" the problem because your ego mislead you into believing that you could appeal to our faith in that system and dupe us into your idiotic support of criminal activity.
> 
> Conservatives are well aware that capitalism *cannot* solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. Only the state can bring criminal charges.
> 
> You need to go back to the drawing board Daniel. Your desperate attempts at throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks is just not working.
Click to expand...

Right wing whining about socialism is annoying, if you can't even proclaim a subscription to capitaism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I updated my propaganda;
> 
> 
> 
> A rare moment of honesty from a fascist. Interesting. I like it.
> 
> But this reality here is one of many reasons why you have no credibility. It is just propaganda - exactly as you said. You Google shit and post it without having a clue what you're looking at. You're uninformed about the subject matter at hand but you insist on posting about it anyway.
Click to expand...

dears on the whole and entire, right wing; y'all cannot get out of this one simply because:

10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, _there is no appeal to ignorance of the law_.


----------



## postman

P@triot said:


> Conservatives are well aware that capitalism *cannot* solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. *Only the state can bring criminal charges.*.



*Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Right wing whining about socialism is annoying, if you can't even proclaim a subscription to capitaism.


Not _nearly_ as annoying as the mind-numbing drivel you post day after day. It's just a simple fact that's the law requires the state to address criminal activity.


----------



## P@triot

postman said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are well aware that capitalism *cannot* solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. *Only the state can bring criminal charges.*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
Click to expand...

Actually, you need to go back to law school to brush up on your civil statutes. Only private citizens can bring civil suites against other citizens. And only the state can bring criminal charges.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing whining about socialism is annoying, if you can't even proclaim a subscription to capitaism.
> 
> 
> 
> Not _nearly_ as annoying as the mind-numbing drivel you post day after day. It's just a simple fact that's the law requires the state to address criminal activity.
Click to expand...

Yes, the law is a form of socialism.  Y"all keep resorting to the socialism of the "coercive use of force of the State" to accomplish most of y'alls objectives, not capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> dears on the whole and entire, right wing; y'all cannot get out of this one simply because:
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, _there is no appeal to ignorance of the law_.


You continue to post incoherent drivel. Like before, you have no idea what the law says. 10 USC 246 _is_ federal law. And it is "upheld". All that law does is outline the classifications of militia, stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dears on the whole and entire, right wing; y'all cannot get out of this one simply because:
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, _there is no appeal to ignorance of the law_.
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to post incoherent drivel. Like before, you have no idea what the law says. 10 USC 246 _is_ federal law. And it is "upheld". All that law does is outline the classifications of militia, stupid.
Click to expand...

What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes, the law is a form of socialism.  Y"all keep resorting to the socialism of the "coercive use of force of the State" to accomplish most of y'alls objectives, not capitalism.


First of all, even if that _were_ true, that doesn't make us socialists dumb-ass. That makes us law-abiding citizens. I can't help that the law requires the state to address criminal activity.

Second, what you said is desperate nonsense (as usual). To avoid vigilante "justice", the law requires the impartial state to address crime. That doesn't make it "socialism". When the government addresses crime, it is not redistributing wealth from Person A to Person B. Your arguments are idiotic and desperate.

Here is the bottom line snowflake: we have an immigration system which allows people to become U.S. citizens. Anyone entering the U.S. outside of that system will be arrested, charged, and ultimately deported. No amount of whining by you on this board is going to change that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.


The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.

Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the law is a form of socialism.  Y"all keep resorting to the socialism of the "coercive use of force of the State" to accomplish most of y'alls objectives, not capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, even if that _were_ true, that doesn't make us socialists dumb-ass. That makes us law-abiding citizens. I can't help that the law requires the state to address criminal activity.
> 
> Second, what you said is desperate nonsense (as usual). To avoid vigilante "justice", the law requires the impartial state to address crime. That doesn't make it "socialism". When the government addresses crime, it is not redistributing wealth from Person A to Person B. Your arguments are idiotic and desperate.
> 
> Here is the bottom line snowflake: we have an immigration system which allows people to become U.S. citizens. Anyone entering the U.S. outside of that system will be arrested, charged, and ultimately deported. No amount of whining by you on this board is going to change that.
Click to expand...

dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.

Public policy that can be profited from by capitalists, is simply a form of income redistribution, as in the example of for-profit prisons that cater to our "wars on crime, drugs, and terror".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.
> 
> Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.
Click to expand...

dear, the "prefatory clause" happens to contain the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in this Case.



> There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.


The _only_ thing we are "soaking" in is your mind-numbing posts. The U.S. Constitution is the law. It is not a "social contract" (things don't become so just because you wish they were so). The U.S. Constitution does not redistribute wealth from one person to another. It simply outlines our rights, the design of our government, and the roles and responsibilities of it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.
> 
> Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the "prefatory clause" happens to contain the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in this Case.
Click to expand...

Nope. It is just a _why_. The why doesn't really matter (it just gives reasoning). What matters is the law. And the law says "the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "the right of the militia". Thanks for playing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing we are "soaking" in is your mind-numbing posts. The U.S. Constitution is the law. It is not a "social contract" (things don't become so just because you wish they were so). The U.S. Constitution does not redistribute wealth from one person to another. It simply outlines our rights, the design of our government, and the roles and responsibilities of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  Why do you believe it is not a social Contract, enforcible at law?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a coincidence; our Second Amendment also, outlines the Intent and Purpose in the first clause, for the second clause to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.
> 
> Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, the "prefatory clause" happens to contain the Intent and Purpose for the second clause, in this Case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. It is just a _why_. The why doesn't really matter (it just gives reasoning). What matters is the law. And the law says "the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "the right of the militia". Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Gibberish?



> There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, _there is no appeal to ignorance of the law_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the *People* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law. The Supreme Court must know that simply Because, _there is no appeal to ignorance of the law_.


I've highlighted the key word above. The people have the right to keep and bear arms. It really is that simple.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Gibberish?


It's difficult for children to wander into a room with adults and follow along. Ask an adult for help.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> 10USC246 is federal law.


Yes it is. It outlines the different forms of militia. Nobody is arguing that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> [Why do you believe it is not a social Contract?


Uh...because I don't believe that which is *not* true.


> The U.S. Constitution established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens.


See? Not a "social contract", snowflake. You'll understand once you get to high school and take government.

The U.S. Constitution - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com


----------



## 12icer

RASTAMEN said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RASTAMEN said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USApatriotz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hope we get the wall!!
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.......YOU ARE TRUMPANZEE--PUTIN SUPPORTER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No..._you_ are *not* an American. Anyone who wants to surrender U.S. sovereignty, shows contempt for the U.S. Constitution, spouts anti-American sentiments, and supports the invasion of the U.S. with the intent to destroy it - as you do - is *not* an American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you spout is exactly what Trump and Red State White Conservatives have done with American Sovereignty with Putin and RUSSIA!!!  You best belive.....Puttin is still Russian KGB and used Russian Cyber Security attacks on our elections to elect Trump.  In Puttin has black mailable evidence to use against Trump.  In fact, Russia-Puttin saw Trump as a "Mark" back in 2013 and has been using Trump.  Follow the Money!
> 
> Trump is simply a Traitor to America and so is Red State White conservative voters who voted for Trump.
> 
> DRIP--DRIP.  Trump has a RUSSIA Problem and the next 3.5 years, Trump will be under investigation.......
Click to expand...


No we won't stand for it MUCH longer , In fact we plan to mount a super campaign to oust every damn dimsht in every state that is even close if we have to stop illegals at the entrance to the polls and arrest them. There is NO and has been NO evidence of any TRUMP connection to RUSSIA you base all of your post on KNOWN LIES and expect anyone to even consider them just as most of your full of shit genre do. HAHAHA you are just comic relief and complete jokes. The investigation will be stopped either by removing all who are party to it, and replacing them, or by the council admitting he has NOTHING and closing it once and for all.


----------



## 12icer

RASTAMEN said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USApatriotz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God I hope we get the wall!!
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, brother! Amen! If we don't, there will be hell to pay for the Republican Party. You can bet the Dumbocrats will recapture FULL control of the House, the Senate, and the White House like 2009 if the Republican Party doesn't build the wall and repeal Obamacare.
> 
> That is exactly what they were sent to Washington to do, by the American people. They better damn well do it or they will regret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republican Party can't GOVERN for ALL the People.  Never have....Never will.
Click to expand...


Liberals will never rule as dictators so you can be sure if they try they will be removed and probably exterminated along with their supporters.


----------



## postman

P@triot said:


> The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.
> 
> Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.



Scalia managed to define "the people" as having at least two different meanings.  That "the people" can refer to singular right, or to a collective right, depending on where it's used.

And of course, Scalia completely ignored the prefatory clause, as if it didn't even exist.


----------



## 12icer

KissMy said:


> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrokeLoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in LA and most of baggers and freeloaders are American born citizens and  mostly white. I have never seen a Latino with a sign asking for money
> Most illegals are hard working people and do contribute to the system and the economy....and without them America wouldn't be what it is. I say legalize them they work harder than millions of those brats that were born here and spend countless of hours on the internet analyzing matters that are too complex for their little brains.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The OP is FAKE NEWS!
> I don't see any Mexicans freeloading!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sadly mistaken and or flat out lying. I'll go out on a limb and bet you're either illegal or of recent illegal descent yourself...what part of Mexico are you from?
> I live in Southern California...there's 5' tall human cockroaches (wetbacks) selling roses on every other corner in the shithole areas. They may as well be begging...If they had a third grade level iQ and could speak/ write English they'd be standing there with a sad face and a cardboard sign.
> "*I don't see any Mexicans freeloading"*
> Let me break this down for:
> The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
> Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour CASH and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
> Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
> The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
> Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe aren't mooching off Americans. Tell me how they're helping Americans and this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
> 
> The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
> 
> If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First things first....What part of Mexico are you from and how long have you stole from and been fed by REAL American's?*
> "Dear idiot! The Gov funded child birth & education expenses you referenced above went to US born children who are US citizens. This is to insure they become healthy, english speaking, educated, employed, productive, tax paying citizens, instead of freeloading mooches.
> I think you mean the "American taxpayer funded"...right?
> *These silver tooth anchors you speak of are here by illegal means and should not be granted citizenship. We desperately need a rewrite of the 14th. Further, the "free shit" program is not working...few become positive contributing, tax paying citizens...many become incarcerated and many become pet humans to taxpayers.*
> 
> The hard working illegal parents making $50k/yr to support their US citizen children,  don't get SS, healthcare or benefits. They may eventually get deported, leaving US all their assets they spent their lifetime building.
> *50k per year...huh? All their assets...huh?
> What, their rabid pit bulls? Their Dodgers and Raiders collections? Their beat up piece of shit Toyota Corolla? Their bright yellow shithole house?
> What fantasy land are you in...haha...that's funny shit. None of your beloved cockroaches make 50k per year. No English and no iQ = no communication skills = no income. Easy shit.*
> 
> If you don't want more US citizens being born in the USA, then you must support abortion, planned parenthood, sterilization, etc
> *Nah, I prefer to support a giant wall, a rewrite of the 14th and zero tolerance against third world filth coming here and robbing REAL American's....TA-DA! What else can I teach you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are far beyond stupid. Your side lost the civil war, therefore the 14th will never be rewritten. Repubtards invited them in to crush wages in the first place. Now that we spent money educating their US citizen kids, you retards want to ship them out before they get a job to pay us back. You stupid big government scum strip citizens of wealth & rights destroying our country.
> 
> Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 shipped out the USA manufacturing jobs. Clinton & Obama saved them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's beyond stupid we have to pay for 21,000 border patrol agents = 11 per mile + their corrupt lifetime government pensions & benefits. One BP agent can easily cover a half mile in each direction with binoculars, radio & rifle. So 1 agent per mile is plenty. 1,950 mile border only needs 1,950 agents.  Multiply times 4 for 24 hour watch, weekends & vacation = 7,800 agents.
> 
> Fire 13,200 BP agents & use that money to cut taxes & build a wall for immigrants to view as they fly over it. Not one more dime for border security. They are just wasting my money if illegals are getting past the current tax payer funded boondoggle of 21,000 Border Patrol Agents of Big Government!
Click to expand...



WOW man a graph from PAINT. Pure bullshit. Clinton and oshitass were not worth a damn for jobs the Republican Congress gave billyboy a balanced budget that turned into a budget surplus for a year. clinton signed NAFTA, and boplenty tried to give asia the rest of our jobs so he could further crash our economy and subjugate the country. So your post is a complete fabrication and all of your BS is lies and propaganda.


----------



## 12icer

postman said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are well aware that capitalism *cannot* solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. *Only the state can bring criminal charges.*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
Click to expand...



ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily. I have been on grand and pettit juries, and sat through many court actions for civil redress. ALL filed BY private citizens, lawyers and their agents. SO don't say I don't KNOW because I have been party to the same.


----------



## 12icer

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, we are "soaking in socialism" because socialism starts with a social Contract like our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing we are "soaking" in is your mind-numbing posts. The U.S. Constitution is the law. It is not a "social contract" (things don't become so just because you wish they were so). The U.S. Constitution does not redistribute wealth from one person to another. It simply outlines our rights, the design of our government, and the roles and responsibilities of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  Why do you believe it is not a social Contract, enforcible at law?
Click to expand...


Because it is NOT a social contract. It gives the duties and the restrictions on the actions of governments State, and Federal.


----------



## postman

12icer said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily..
Click to expand...


That suit is in the name of the  court, not in the name of the person.  Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.  It is up to the opinion of the court whether a suit can even proceed.   So a person can file a lawsuit, but unless the court agrees to hear the case, there is no lawsuit.


----------



## postman

12icer said:


> ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity..... .



Similarly any person can file a criminal complaint against any person or persons.  But as with civil cases, they are brought in the name of the state or federal court.


----------



## Toro

Trump's wall costs $0.


----------



## postman

Toro said:


> Trump's wall costs $0.



I believe that's a reference to how much Mexico is going to pay.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing whining about socialism is annoying, if you can't even proclaim a subscription to capitaism.
> 
> 
> 
> Not _nearly_ as annoying as the mind-numbing drivel you post day after day. It's just a simple fact that's the law requires the state to address criminal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the law is a form of socialism.  Y"all keep resorting to the socialism of the "coercive use of force of the State" to accomplish most of y'alls objectives, not capitalism.
Click to expand...

Laws against murder are socialism?  Wrong.  The law is socialism when it is used to interfere in voluntary transactions between citizens.  Laws preventing crimes against citizens are not socialism.  A law preventing me from buying or selling whatever health insurance I choose is socialism.


----------



## bripat9643

Toro said:


> Trump's wall costs $0.


How much did your lobotomy cost?


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are admitting this cannot be solved by Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> How can I "admit" to something which I *never* claimed?
> 
> Snowflake..._you_ said capitalism would "solve" the problem because your ego mislead you into believing that you could appeal to our faith in that system and dupe us into your idiotic support of criminal activity.
> 
> Conservatives are well aware that capitalism *cannot* solve criminal activity simply because it is not permitted to. If a person is murdered, the family cannot bring criminal charges against someone. They can bring civil charges - but not criminal charges. Only the state can bring criminal charges.
> 
> You need to go back to the drawing board Daniel. Your desperate attempts at throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks is just not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing whining about socialism is annoying, if you can't even proclaim a subscription to capitaism.
Click to expand...

You realize that you're a nutburger, don't you?


----------



## P@triot

postman said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.
> 
> Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia managed to define "the people" as having at least two different meanings.  That "the people" can refer to singular right, or to a collective right, depending on where it's used.
> 
> And of course, Scalia completely ignored the prefatory clause, as if it didn't even exist.
Click to expand...

Either way - it doesn't change the result. Whether the people means an individual (such as myself) or the people means the collective (such as each U.S. citizen), we still have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part about the militia was the Prefatory Clause. It was the _why_. The Operative Clause (the what) is that the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms and it will not be infringed.
> 
> Please stop trying to play legal scholar. You are embarrassing yourself. And not for nothing - but there shouldn't be a comma between "also" and "outlines" in your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia managed to define "the people" as having at least two different meanings.  That "the people" can refer to singular right, or to a collective right, depending on where it's used.
> 
> And of course, Scalia completely ignored the prefatory clause, as if it didn't even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either way - it doesn't change the result. Whether the people means an individual (such as myself) or the people means the collective (such as each U.S. citizen), we still have the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

The notion that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the government to bear arms is too absurd for words to describe.


----------



## P@triot

postman said:


> That suit is in the name of the  court, not in the name of the person.


Why is it the left *never* knows what they are talking about? I don't understand why they insist on just making shit up and posting it as if it was reality. We need to build a fiction website for lefties where they can just fabricate their little stories until their tiny little hearts are content.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> The notion that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the government to bear arms is too absurd for words to describe.


The notion that the left has the slightest clue about the U.S. Constitution is even more abusrd!


----------



## bripat9643

postman said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suit is in the name of the  court, not in the name of the person.  Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.  It is up to the opinion of the court whether a suit can even proceed.   So a person can file a lawsuit, but unless the court agrees to hear the case, there is no lawsuit.
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit it's beyond human comprehension.


----------



## P@triot

postman said:


> Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.


No shit, "genius". That's how our legal system is designed. It doesn't change the fact that the civil suit which generated the summons was brought by the citizen.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suit is in the name of the  court, not in the name of the person.  Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.  It is up to the opinion of the court whether a suit can even proceed.   So a person can file a lawsuit, but unless the court agrees to hear the case, there is no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit it's beyond human comprehension.
Click to expand...

It's scary. He's just posting absurd shit. The Goldman's brought a civil suit against OJ Simpson. The state of California did not (they brought the criminal case against OJ).


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, "genius". That's how our legal system is designed. It doesn't change the fact that the civil suit which generated the summons was brought by the citizen.
Click to expand...

Postal seems to think people should be able to run their own courts and hand down judgments in their favor.  The guy also claims to have a law degree!


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, "genius". That's how our legal system is designed. It doesn't change the fact that the civil suit which generated the summons was brought by the citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Postal seems to think people should be able to run their own courts and hand down judgments in their favor.  The guy also claims to have a law degree!
Click to expand...

If he has a law degree, then I am literally Steve Jobs, founder of Apple.


----------



## RASTAMEN

bripat9643 said:


> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suit is in the name of the  court, not in the name of the person.  Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.  It is up to the opinion of the court whether a suit can even proceed.   So a person can file a lawsuit, but unless the court agrees to hear the case, there is no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit it's beyond human comprehension.
Click to expand...

Conservatives and Trump voters are not HUMAN!!!!!


----------



## Unkotare

RASTAMEN said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually only the state or federal court can bring civil charges.*  Private citizens have no jurisdiction over other citizens, except for parental rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY person with standing can file civil action against any person  or entity EXCEPT SOME governments and their agents in any court that has jurisdiction armchair lawyers prove they are lost in space daily..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suit is in the name of the  court, not in the name of the person.  Defendants are summoned to appear before the court, not before the plaintiff.  It is up to the opinion of the court whether a suit can even proceed.   So a person can file a lawsuit, but unless the court agrees to hear the case, there is no lawsuit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit it's beyond human comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives and Trump voters are not HUMAN!!!!!
Click to expand...





???

Say wha now?


----------



## KissMy

We are paying 21,000 Border Patrol. That's 11 agents per mile. Yet I can't find any looking at google satellite images & images from google's roving car on hwy 20 around known illegal crossing hotspots like Acala Texas. Tax payers are being scammed by these high paid con-artist drawing salary, pensions & benefits.


----------



## Spare_change

KissMy said:


> We are paying 21,000 Border Patrol. That's 11 agents per mile. Yet I can't find any looking at google satellite images & images from google's roving car on hwy 20 around known illegal crossing hotspots like Acala Texas. Tax payers are being scammed by these high paid con-artist drawing salary, pensions & benefits.


Kidding, right??

You need to do your research.


----------



## P@triot

So....much....winning


> The United States will waive environmental rules so extra barriers can be built to bar illegal immigrants from crossing the border with Mexico near San Diego, the Department of Homeland Security said on Tuesday.
> 
> The projects, on about 15 miles (24 km) of the frontier extending east from the Pacific Ocean, are part of President Donald Trump's planned wall between the United States and Mexico.


Securing the borders, restoring constitutional government, preserving liberty, being fiscally responsible....hot damn it is *great* to be an American _again_!

U.S. eases environment laws for Mexico border wall near San Diego


----------



## P@triot

So...much...winning


> The number of asylum seekers walking across the U.S. border into Canada rose in June... Many asylum seekers whom Reuters has spoken to said they left the United States because they feared deportation in light of President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.


Thank you President Trump for securing our borders and running these criminals out of our country. Let them be a burden to Canada.

Flow of asylum seekers crossing into Canada from U.S. rises in June


----------



## Dschrute3

I'm in. Build that wall mutha fucka!!! Go Trump!


----------



## P@triot

Even if the left-wing *lies* _were_ true and illegal aliens generated more in tax revenue to the government than they cost the government - it wouldn't matter. *They broke the law*. Bernie Madoff generated a shit-ton of tax revenue for the government too but the left still wanted his head on a spear. Just another example of how they contradict themselves.


> The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.
> 
> The nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.
> 
> On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.
> 
> At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).
> 
> The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).


The *truth* is - illegal aliens are an unbearable burden to the U.S. tax payer and the national debt.

How Much Is Illegal Immigration Costing You? Here Are The Numbers.


----------



## JQPublic1

The data generated by  F.A.I.R is compelling. However, a cursory  background review of three founders reveal ties to white supremacists and RW extremism.
Any data published by as controversial an organization as F.A.I.R. should be read and consumed with extreme caution.
Federation for American Immigration Reform


----------



## Picaro

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



A huge bargain, and we know for a fact they work, as proven elsewhere in the world. The only people opposed to it are labor racketeers, drug gangs, and racists, which means all Democrats and their fellow establishment GOP hacks, the Party of violent traitors.


----------



## bripat9643

Picaro said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge bargain, and we know for a fact they work, as proven elsewhere in the world. The only people opposed to it are labor racketeers, drug gangs, and racists, which means all Democrats and their fellow establishment GOP hacks, the Party of violent traitors.
Click to expand...

Anyone who claims walls don't work is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.


Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.


> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.


If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.

US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
Click to expand...

Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
Click to expand...

Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Yeah...*a man with a balloon* big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds....


    

(Psst...Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was just a movie)


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> ....as could a man using a hand glider


1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider. 

2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?

3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.

4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?


----------



## Wry Catcher

P@triot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
Click to expand...


LOL, did they try to use an anti tank weapon?

*So said an anonymous U.S. official*[/QUOTE]


----------



## oreo

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.
Click to expand...



Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.  Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.

The only way to truly secure the border is with motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations who can respond quickly.  If they can't see it--they won't even attempt to cross.





The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels

*If this wall is built it will be the biggest boondoggle and waste of taxpayer dollars ever.  Trump said that Mexico would pay for it.  They won't, so why should U.S. taxpayers pay for a worthless wall.*

The 21.6 billion is for materials ONLY.

At the end of this video it will explain the over *250 tunnels* they have found and they know there are many others they haven't found.


----------



## Wry Catcher

oreo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.  Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.
> 
> The only way to truly secure the border is with motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations who can respond quickly.  If they can't see it--they won't even attempt to cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> *If this wall is built it will be the biggest boondoggle and waste of taxpayer dollars ever.  Trump said that Mexico would pay for it.  They won't, so why should U.S. taxpayers pay for a worthless wall.*
> 
> The 21.6 billion is for materials ONLY.
> 
> At the end of this video it will explain the over *250 tunnels* they have found and they know there are many others they haven't found.
Click to expand...


Thank you, don't expect a trumpanzee to be swayed by the truth / facts you've posted above - they rely on emotion and believe every word and tweet Trump expresses.   

Even when he flips and flops on issues, they will agree with him on each flip and each flop.  It truly is amazing, albeit an embarrassment to thinking American patriots.


----------



## jon_berzerk

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




good post


----------



## bripat9643

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, did they try to use an anti tank weapon?
> 
> *So said an anonymous U.S. official*
Click to expand...


Where would some poor Mexican peasant get an anti-tank weapon?  The ones I'm familiar with cost over $200,000 a pop.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as could a man using a hand glider
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider.
> 
> 2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?
> 
> 3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.
> 
> 4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?
Click to expand...


Really?


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
Click to expand...


Hot air balloons cost $15,000.  The wind also has to be blowing in the right direction.  Then there's also the problem that you can be seen for miles.  How much do you want to bet that the border patrol will be waiting for you when you land?  

A hang glider needs a spot higher than the wall to be launched from.  There are no such places, moron.  It also costs about $1,500, and it takes some training to fly. 

Your ideas may sound good for a movie plot, but they don't work out in the real world, especially when you're talking about millions of people.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as could a man using a hand glider
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider.
> 
> 2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?
> 
> 3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.
> 
> 4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

Which side are those on?


----------



## Ame®icano




----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, did they try to use an anti tank weapon?
> 
> *So said an anonymous U.S. official*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where would some poor Mexican peasant get an anti-tank weapon?  The ones I'm familiar with cost over $200,000 a pop.
Click to expand...


Mea culpa, I forgot concrete thinkers like you wouldn't understand sarcasm.  Then again, consider:

Oklahoma City bombing - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

or this,

Building implosion - Wikipedia


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, did they try to use an anti tank weapon?
> 
> *So said an anonymous U.S. official*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where would some poor Mexican peasant get an anti-tank weapon?  The ones I'm familiar with cost over $200,000 a pop.
Click to expand...


A few hundred bucks for a Chicom hand thrown anti tank grenade. Iraq & Iran used a sh!tload against US.
Then there are the Hafthohlladung H3.5  & Panzerwurfmine


----------



## KissMy

The commandos were only allowed to attempt by following the wall manufacturers guidelines. I'm sure Mexicans will will play by those rules :-D


----------



## BrokeLoser

KissMy said:


> The commandos were only allowed to attempt by following the wall manufacturers guidelines. I'm sure Mexicans will will play by those rules :-D



I'm sure commandos are no match for 5' tall 110lb malnourished beaners.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

BrokeLoser said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The commandos were only allowed to attempt by following the wall manufacturers guidelines. I'm sure Mexicans will will play by those rules :-D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure commandos are no match for 5' tall 110lb malnourished beaners.
Click to expand...


Oh please, isn't Mexico even fatter than America?
Yeah, they're beating the U.S.A in something, and it's not even a good thing.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hot air balloons cost $15,000.  The wind also has to be blowing in the right direction.  Then there's also the problem that you can be seen for miles.  How much do you want to bet that the border patrol will be waiting for you when you land?
> 
> A hang glider needs a spot higher than the wall to be launched from.  There are no such places, moron.  It also costs about $1,500, and it takes some training to fly.
> 
> Your ideas may sound good for a movie plot, but they don't work out in the real world, especially when you're talking about millions of people.
Click to expand...

You don't have much of an imagination do you. I never mentioned a hot air ballon.  A ballon can be made by some enterprising coyote( hopefully you know what a coyote is)
Who can make a tidy sum by floating individuals over the wall with a ballon and a long rope tethered to the mexican side so the height of the rise can be controlled and the ballon can be retrieved and usd over and over again. And working at night would lessen the chance of detection. Now you incompetent moron do you understand?

A hang glider might be impractical for your average illegal fruitpicker but using one or several launched from a plane or mountain top near the border could facilitate the drug cartels.... 
Thinking outside the box. Has keopt me ahead of idiots like you for years....looks like it still does.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.
Click to expand...

Keep reading and discover how it can be done.


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.


Oh of course! Because the average destitute Mexican can’t afford a $4 million tunnel. 


oreo said:


> Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.


Yeah...because 41 feet high ladders are actually manufactured. 

Tell me something slick - how are all of these desperate and destitute Mexicans going to transport these imaginary 41 ft. high ladders to the wall?


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Even when he flips and flops on issues, they will agree with him on each flip and each flop.  It truly is amazing, albeit an embarrassment to thinking American patriots.


Here is Guy Catcher explaining the progressive mindset with Barack Insane Obama.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as could a man using a hand glider
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider.
> 
> 2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?
> 
> 3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.
> 
> 4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

Oh look....a random picture of a cliff (having absolutely nothing to do with Mexico or the U.S. border).


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> The commandos were only allowed to attempt by following the wall manufacturers guidelines. I'm sure Mexicans will will play by those rules :-D


And I’m suuuuuuuure you can back up that outrageous lie. Oh wait - that’s right. You didn’t put a link in your idiotic claim for a reason.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Thinking outside the box.


Thinking outside the box? You’re not thinking at all snowflake. That was one of the most idiotic posts ever. Nobody is taking a “balloon” (  ) over the border wall. And nobody is “hand” gliding over either, nitwit.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as could a man using a hand glider
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider.
> 
> 2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?
> 
> 3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.
> 
> 4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?
Click to expand...


A hang glider could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband across the border . Drug cartels could use them.  But today drones might be a better option since they are powered and can be remotely controlled


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as could a man using a hand glider
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider.
> 
> 2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?
> 
> 3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.
> 
> 4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look....a random picture of a cliff (having absolutely nothing to do with Mexico or the U.S. border).
Click to expand...


If thats the Rio Grande it does.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking outside the box.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking outside the box? You’re not thinking at all snowflake. That was one of the most idiotic posts ever. Nobody is taking a “balloon” (  ) over the border wall. And nobody is “hand” gliding over either, nitwit.
Click to expand...

Don't be too sure...if you don't know about it it must be working....


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh of course! Because the average destitute Mexican can’t afford a $4 million tunnel.
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...because 41 feet high ladders are actually manufactured.
> 
> Tell me something slick - how are all of these desperate and destitute Mexicans going to transport these imaginary 41 ft. high ladders to the wall?
Click to expand...


The human traffickers known as coyotes will take care of that.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking outside the box.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking outside the box? You’re not thinking at all snowflake. That was one of the most idiotic posts ever. Nobody is taking a “balloon” (  ) over the border wall. And nobody is “hand” gliding over either, nitwit.
Click to expand...


Do you remember the Berlin wall. Aseveral people got over that wall with a home made hot air balloon .


*"6. In a Hot Air Balloon*
The escape orchestrated by Hans Strelczyk and Gunter Wetzel in 1979 sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. Strelczyk, a mechanic, and Wetzel, a mason, used their mechanical know-how to build a hot air balloon engine out of old propane cylinders. Their wives then pieced together a makeshift balloon from scraps of canvas and old bed sheets, and on September 16, 1979, the two couples, along with their four children, floated up to 8,000 feet and drifted over the wall to freedom."
8 Creative Ways People Went Over the Berlin Wall


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> You don't have much of an imagination do you.


And you have waaaaaay to much of one, balloon boy.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> You don't have much of an imagination do you. I never mentioned a hot air ballon.  A ballon can be made by some enterprising *coyote*


Will said coyote achieve said breach using an acme rocket?    

The only thing looney tunes are your posts. In the real world, *nobody* is breaching that wall. _Nobody_. The people who break into our country now do so on foot with no materials available.

The best you’ll get are some drug cartels tunneling under it. And we already have that problem. So we reduce illegals from several million to a few dozen.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> Nobody is taking a “balloon” (  ) over the border wall.



One last word about traversing Trump's Folly with controlled balloons. If helium filled party baloons can raise a man in a lawn chair thousands of feet into the air a similar arrangement controlled by coyotes could easily move people over the wall easily.
Of course some kind of quick release and cushionng  would have to be added to soften. the fall...or a rope for descension might be a better id ea. Tholis could be done over and over sgain as the tethered balloons could be recovered after each trip.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have much of an imagination do you. I never mentioned a hot air ballon.  A ballon can be made by some enterprising *coyote*
> 
> 
> 
> Will said coyote achieve said breach using an acme rocket?
> 
> The only thing looney tunes are your posts. In the real world, *nobody* is breaching that wall. _Nobody_. The people who break into our country now do so on foot with no materials available.
> 
> The best you’ll get are some drug cartels tunneling under it. And we already have that problem. So we reduce illegals from several million to a few dozen.
Click to expand...

Well actually many of the the people coming into our country come here legally with visas.
When the visas expire they simply stay. No wall is going to keep THEM out.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have much of an imagination do you.
> 
> 
> 
> And you have waaaaaay to much of one, balloon boy.
Click to expand...

Well Trump's wall is far more ridulous than 
anything I've said. And my balloon theories won't cost the government billions of wasted dollars.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Do you remember the Berlin wall. Aseveral people got over that wall with a home made hot air balloon .
> 
> *"6. In a Hot Air Balloon*
> The escape orchestrated by Hans Strelczyk and Gunter Wetzel in 1979 sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. Strelczyk, a mechanic, and Wetzel, a mason, used their mechanical know-how to build a hot air balloon engine out of old propane cylinders. Their wives then pieced together a makeshift balloon from scraps of canvas and old bed sheets, and on September 16, 1979, the two couples, along with their four children, floated up to 8,000 feet and drifted over the wall to freedom."
> 8 Creative Ways People Went Over the Berlin Wall


Soooooo....a whopping 8 people made it over the Berlin Wall over 40 years? 

Now let’s consider reality for just a moment.....mmmmK?

1. East Germany was oppressive - causing people to go to _great_ lengths to escape. An issue we don’t face with Mexico.

2. The Berlin Wall existed in a time when drones did not patrol the sky. That instantly eliminates your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon idea.

3. In more than 4 decades - you can confirm that a total of 8 people made it over the wall with your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon nonsense? That makes the border wall worth every penny. I’ll accept 8 people “floating” into our nation over 4 decades. That is an epic Return on Investment.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Well actually many of the the people coming into our country come here legally with visas. When the visas expire they simply stay. No wall is going to keep THEM out.


Well that’s just a matter of enforcing the law (something that Dumbocrats refuse to do but which is no big deal for Republicans).

The U.S. Marshalls will have their residence, place of employment, contacts, paper trails, digital trails, etc. It would take them less than 3 days to track down every single illegal who overstayed their visa.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the Berlin wall. Aseveral people got over that wall with a home made hot air balloon .
> 
> *"6. In a Hot Air Balloon*
> The escape orchestrated by Hans Strelczyk and Gunter Wetzel in 1979 sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. Strelczyk, a mechanic, and Wetzel, a mason, used their mechanical know-how to build a hot air balloon engine out of old propane cylinders. Their wives then pieced together a makeshift balloon from scraps of canvas and old bed sheets, and on September 16, 1979, the two couples, along with their four children, floated up to 8,000 feet and drifted over the wall to freedom."
> 8 Creative Ways People Went Over the Berlin Wall
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo....a whopping 8 people made it over the Berlin Wall over 40 years?
> 
> Now let’s consider reality for just a moment.....mmmmK?
> 
> 1. East Germany was oppressive - causing people to go to _great_ lengths to escape. An issue we don’t face with Mexico.
> 
> 2. The Berlin Wall existed in a time when drones did not patrol the sky. That instantly eliminates your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon idea.
> 
> 3. In more than 4 decades - you can confirm that a total of 8 people made it over the wall with your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon nonsense? That makes the border wall worth every penny. I’ll accept 8 people “floating” into our nation over 4 decades. That is an epic Return on Investment.
Click to expand...


So what do you propse we do about those who overstay their visas?


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> And my balloon theories won't cost the government billions of wasted dollars.


We’ve already proven that the wall will save billions. It will pay for itself in under 3 years in worst-case-scenario and will likely pay for itself in the first year.

Besides...since when are you progressives fiscally conscious? All we ever hear you people whine about is government spending like drunk sailors on “infrastructure”. Well - this is *exactly* what you people have demanded for the past 100 years. Funny how you suddenly don’t desire what you want when President Trump is the man giving it to you.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the Berlin wall. Aseveral people got over that wall with a home made hot air balloon .
> 
> *"6. In a Hot Air Balloon*
> The escape orchestrated by Hans Strelczyk and Gunter Wetzel in 1979 sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. Strelczyk, a mechanic, and Wetzel, a mason, used their mechanical know-how to build a hot air balloon engine out of old propane cylinders. Their wives then pieced together a makeshift balloon from scraps of canvas and old bed sheets, and on September 16, 1979, the two couples, along with their four children, floated up to 8,000 feet and drifted over the wall to freedom."
> 8 Creative Ways People Went Over the Berlin Wall
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo....a whopping 8 people made it over the Berlin Wall over 40 years?
> 
> Now let’s consider reality for just a moment.....mmmmK?
> 
> 1. East Germany was oppressive - causing people to go to _great_ lengths to escape. An issue we don’t face with Mexico.
> 
> 2. The Berlin Wall existed in a time when drones did not patrol the sky. That instantly eliminates your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon idea.
> 
> 3. In more than 4 decades - you can confirm that a total of 8 people made it over the wall with your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon nonsense? That makes the border wall worth every penny. I’ll accept 8 people “floating” into our nation over 4 decades. That is an epic Return on Investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you propse we do about those who overstay their visas?
Click to expand...

Enforce the law. Problem solved. Refer to post #745.


----------



## deanrd

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


DACA deportations  could cost US economy more than $400 billion

Dreamers contribute to our economy

Why would we kick out these key contributors to our economy? The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering. It would cost our economy nearly half a trillion dollars in GDP loss over the next decade. American employers would be harmed, facing $6.3 billion in unnecessary turnover costs to recruit, hire and train more than 700,000 new employees.

Appalachia: The big white ghetto

If the people here weren't 98.5 percent white, we'd call it a reservation.

--------------------------------

Kick them out and we wouldn't have the money or the people to pay for welfare for Republicans.

After all, Republicans are NOT going to get job training or go to school.  They just don't.  It's to hard and they  hate that kind of work.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually many of the the people coming into our country come here legally with visas. When the visas expire they simply stay. No wall is going to keep THEM out.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that’s just a matter of enforcing the law (something that Dumbocrats refuse to do but which is no big deal for Republicans).
> 
> The U.S. Marshalls will have their residence, place of employment, contacts, paper trails, digital trails, etc. It would take them less than 3 days to track down every single illegal who overstayed their visa.
Click to expand...

When are they going to start


P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually many of the the people coming into our country come here legally with visas. When the visas expire they simply stay. No wall is going to keep THEM out.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that’s just a matter of enforcing the law (something that Dumbocrats refuse to do but which is no big deal for Republicans).
> 
> The U.S. Marshalls will have their residence, place of employment, contacts, paper trails, digital trails, etc. It would take them less than 3 days to track down every single illegal who overstayed their visa.
Click to expand...

The visa security program operates under the auspices of Homeland Security not the US Marshals. Although the Marshals do get involved with illegal immigrants, the adminstrators are complaining that illegal immigration takes too much if their time. They percieve the threat along the border as coming from the Mexican mafia...not illegals
US Marshal concerned by wasting resources on immigration | US Immigration News


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> Why would we kick out these key contributors to our economy?


Because only Dumbocrats are lawless thugs. The rest of us realize that there is no society, economy, or civilization without law and order.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> The visa security program operates under the auspices of Homeland Security not the US Marshals.


Uh...it’s the US Marshals (and ICE) that track down illegals/fugitives. Not Homeland Security.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we kick out these key contributors to our economy?
> 
> 
> 
> Because only Dumbocrats are lawless thugs. The rest of us realize that there is no society, economy, or civilization without law and order.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.


----------



## deanrd

Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

Could you imagine losing a half trillion to build a worthless 20 billion dollar wall?
A monument to stupidity.  Why would Republicans be proud of something that make them look like tards to the rest of the world?
And they think they are so good at economics.


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.


The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.

Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we kick out these key contributors to our economy?
> 
> 
> 
> Because only Dumbocrats are lawless thugs. The rest of us realize that there is no society, economy, or civilization without law and order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Only one side isn’t enforcing the law my friend, and it sure as hell isn’t the right.


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year
> 
> Could you imagine losing a half trillion to build a worthless 20 billion dollar wall?
> A monument to stupidity.  Why would Republicans be proud of something that make them look like tards to the rest of the world?
> And they think they are so good at economics.


Well..as the link in your post states...illegal immigration costs us $148.3 billion per year. Which means the wall will pay for itself in about 2 months. After that, we’ll have an extra $148.3 billion per year for our debt, for Americans, etc.

Math not your strong point?


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The visa security program operates under the auspices of Homeland Security not the US Marshals.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...it’s the US Marshals (and ICE) that track down illegals/fugitives. Not Homeland Security.
Click to expand...

We were talking about people who overstay their visas. Here is the validationation:

Visa Security Program


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> One last word about traversing Trump's Folly with controlled balloons. If helium filled party baloons can raise a man in a lawn chair *thousands of feet into the air* a similar arrangement controlled by coyotes could easily move people over the wall easily.
> Of course some kind of quick release and cushionng  would have to be added to soften. the fall...or a rope for descension might be a better id ea. Tholis could be done over and over sgain as the *tethered* balloons could be recovered after each trip.


Yeah...because everyone has thousands of feet of rope to “tether” a balloon and pull it back. Plus...nobody would ever see that. Least of all, the drones patrolling our borders.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The visa security program operates under the auspices of Homeland Security not the US Marshals.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...it’s the US Marshals (and ICE) that track down illegals/fugitives. Not Homeland Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were talking about people who overstay their visas. Here is the validationation:
> 
> Visa Security Program
Click to expand...

Yeah. I know. Are you struggling to keep up here? When they over stay their visas, it will be ICE or the U.S. Marshals that will track them down. And it will be done in just a couple of days due to technology and the information require by the visa program.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we kick out these key contributors to our economy?
> 
> 
> 
> Because only Dumbocrats are lawless thugs. The rest of us realize that there is no society, economy, or civilization without law and order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it. Only one side isn’t enforcing the law my friend, and it sure as hell isn’t the right.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about immigration law or civil rights law?  It seems to me the Republicans have broken Constitutional based law by trying to suppress minority voting rights. 
Thuggery abounds in the HOP camp to such an extent thei corrupt leader , Trump, may be toppled by the dogmatic investigations of Mueller.... How many GOP criminals associated with Trump have  already 
been given deals to save their asses by talking.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last word about traversing Trump's Folly with controlled balloons. If helium filled party baloons can raise a man in a lawn chair *thousands of feet into the air* a similar arrangement controlled by coyotes could easily move people over the wall easily.
> Of course some kind of quick release and cushionng  would have to be added to soften. the fall...or a rope for descension might be a better id ea. Tholis could be done over and over sgain as the *tethered* balloons could be recovered after each trip.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because everyone has thousands of feet of rope to “tether” a balloon and pull it back. Plus...nobody would ever see that. Least of all, the drones patrolling our borders.
Click to expand...

You dont need thousands of feet of rope dope.All you need is enough to allow the balloon to float just above the top of the wall.
Are you really that dense?

And operating at night would lessen the chance of detection.
Look...I m nit saying it will happen...all I'm saying is it is possible.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The visa security program operates under the auspices of Homeland Security not the US Marshals.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...it’s the US Marshals (and ICE) that track down illegals/fugitives. Not Homeland Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were talking about people who overstay their visas. Here is the validationation:
> 
> Visa Security Program
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. I know. Are you struggling to keep up here? When they over stay their visas, it will be ICE or the U.S. Marshals that will track them down. And it will be done in just a couple of days due to technology and the information require by the visa program.
Click to expand...

Well ...i have a link supporting my premise and you don't so just STFU.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the Berlin wall. Aseveral people got over that wall with a home made hot air balloon .
> 
> *"6. In a Hot Air Balloon*
> The escape orchestrated by Hans Strelczyk and Gunter Wetzel in 1979 sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. Strelczyk, a mechanic, and Wetzel, a mason, used their mechanical know-how to build a hot air balloon engine out of old propane cylinders. Their wives then pieced together a makeshift balloon from scraps of canvas and old bed sheets, and on September 16, 1979, the two couples, along with their four children, floated up to 8,000 feet and drifted over the wall to freedom."
> 8 Creative Ways People Went Over the Berlin Wall
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo....a whopping 8 people made it over the Berlin Wall over 40 years?
> 
> Now let’s consider reality for just a moment.....mmmmK?
> 
> 1. East Germany was oppressive - causing people to go to _great_ lengths to escape. An issue we don’t face with Mexico.
> 
> 2. The Berlin Wall existed in a time when drones did not patrol the sky. That instantly eliminates your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon idea.
> 
> 3. In more than 4 decades - you can confirm that a total of 8 people made it over the wall with your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon nonsense? That makes the border wall worth every penny. I’ll accept 8 people “floating” into our nation over 4 decades. That is an epic Return on Investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you propse we do about those who overstay their visas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enforce the law. Problem solved. Refer to post #745.
Click to expand...

More easily said than done. BTW... Border crossings were already declining and visa violations occur despite the wall. Trump's Folly is a waste of money. I'd use those funds to rebuild our aging infrastructure.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....as could a man using a hand glider
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It’s *not* a “hand glider” it’s a *hang* glider.
> 
> 2. A lot of *hang* gliders down there in Mexico, are there?
> 
> 3. Hang gliders are not airplanes. They can only be used by launching off of a cliff and using the wind to GLIDE for a very short period. There are no cliffs by the border, sweetie.
> 
> 4. How are Mexicans going to hang glide their infants and small children across?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look....a random picture of a cliff (having absolutely nothing to do with Mexico or the U.S. border).
Click to expand...


Google Lake Amistad, or Texas Border cliffs, or even Southern US Border cliffs. You'll find that picture and plenty more.


----------



## oreo

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh of course! Because the average destitute Mexican can’t afford a $4 million tunnel.
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...because 41 feet high ladders are actually manufactured.
> 
> Tell me something slick - how are all of these desperate and destitute Mexicans going to transport these imaginary 41 ft. high ladders to the wall?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The human traffickers known as coyotes will take care of that.
Click to expand...



They've got some multi-million dollar tunnels along the border already.  240 they have found in the San Diego region alone and they know there's more.





http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-border-tunnels-20150501-htmlstory.html


----------



## Spare_change

oreo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.  Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.
> 
> The only way to truly secure the border is with motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations who can respond quickly.  If they can't see it--they won't even attempt to cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> *If this wall is built it will be the biggest boondoggle and waste of taxpayer dollars ever.  Trump said that Mexico would pay for it.  They won't, so why should U.S. taxpayers pay for a worthless wall.*
> 
> The 21.6 billion is for materials ONLY.
> 
> At the end of this video it will explain the over *250 tunnels* they have found and they know there are many others they haven't found.
Click to expand...

It has been repeatedly demonstrated just exactly how stupid this post is. Tunnels are NOT an option, if the US decides to eliminate them.

You need to stop spreading garbage like this.


----------



## Spare_change

Wry Catcher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.  Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.
> 
> The only way to truly secure the border is with motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations who can respond quickly.  If they can't see it--they won't even attempt to cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> *If this wall is built it will be the biggest boondoggle and waste of taxpayer dollars ever.  Trump said that Mexico would pay for it.  They won't, so why should U.S. taxpayers pay for a worthless wall.*
> 
> The 21.6 billion is for materials ONLY.
> 
> At the end of this video it will explain the over *250 tunnels* they have found and they know there are many others they haven't found.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, don't expect a trumpanzee to be swayed by the truth / facts you've posted above - they rely on emotion and believe every word and tweet Trump expresses.
> 
> Even when he flips and flops on issues, they will agree with him on each flip and each flop.  It truly is amazing, albeit an embarrassment to thinking American patriots.
Click to expand...

You believe this innocuous bullshit only because you WANT to believe it. Reality is of no concern to you.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the Berlin wall. Aseveral people got over that wall with a home made hot air balloon .
> 
> *"6. In a Hot Air Balloon*
> The escape orchestrated by Hans Strelczyk and Gunter Wetzel in 1979 sounds like it came straight out of a comic book. Strelczyk, a mechanic, and Wetzel, a mason, used their mechanical know-how to build a hot air balloon engine out of old propane cylinders. Their wives then pieced together a makeshift balloon from scraps of canvas and old bed sheets, and on September 16, 1979, the two couples, along with their four children, floated up to 8,000 feet and drifted over the wall to freedom."
> 8 Creative Ways People Went Over the Berlin Wall
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooo....a whopping 8 people made it over the Berlin Wall over 40 years?
> 
> Now let’s consider reality for just a moment.....mmmmK?
> 
> 1. East Germany was oppressive - causing people to go to _great_ lengths to escape. An issue we don’t face with Mexico.
> 
> 2. The Berlin Wall existed in a time when drones did not patrol the sky. That instantly eliminates your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon idea.
> 
> 3. In more than 4 decades - you can confirm that a total of 8 people made it over the wall with your Warner Brother’s hot air balloon nonsense? That makes the border wall worth every penny. I’ll accept 8 people “floating” into our nation over 4 decades. That is an epic Return on Investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what do you propse we do about those who overstay their visas?
Click to expand...

Well, since execution is probably out of the question, 5 years in jail and deportation would probably do the trick. Second offense, 10 years and deportation.


----------



## deanrd

P@triot said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
Click to expand...

Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.  

Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.

Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says

And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.


----------



## Spare_change

deanrd said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?

It sucks to be you.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
Click to expand...

He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?


----------



## deanrd

Spare_change said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to lie.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
Click to expand...

Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.


----------



## Spare_change

deanrd said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no reason to lie.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you?

You throw all this out there, distort the reality, and then fabricate what you believe the response of Republicans would be. Then, you compound this charade by using your fabrications as proof for other misstatements, distortions, and outright lies.

Must feel like you're standing in quicksand, and the truth is pulling you down.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, did they try to use an anti tank weapon?
> 
> *So said an anonymous U.S. official*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where would some poor Mexican peasant get an anti-tank weapon?  The ones I'm familiar with cost over $200,000 a pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few hundred bucks for a Chicom hand thrown anti tank grenade. Iraq & Iran used a sh!tload against US.
> Then there are the Hafthohlladung H3.5  & Panzerwurfmine
Click to expand...


Those are all WW II era weapons.  I doubt if they are still manufactured, and they probably wouldn't penetrate 2 feet of reinforced concrete.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
Click to expand...

Well dayum, son deanrd posted links to support his premise but all I see from you is hot air. Your personal opinion don't mean shyt around here.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no reason to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just don't get it, do you?
> 
> You throw all this out there, distort the reality, and then fabricate what you believe the response of Republicans would be. Then, you compound this charade by using your fabrications as proof for other misstatements, distortions, and outright lies.
> 
> Must feel like you're standing in quicksand, and the truth is pulling you down.
Click to expand...

More hot air from a kool- aid drinker.


----------



## bripat9643

deanrd said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> DACA deportations  could cost US economy more than $400 billion
> 
> Dreamers contribute to our economy
> 
> Why would we kick out these key contributors to our economy? The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering. It would cost our economy nearly half a trillion dollars in GDP loss over the next decade. American employers would be harmed, facing $6.3 billion in unnecessary turnover costs to recruit, hire and train more than 700,000 new employees.
> 
> Appalachia: The big white ghetto
> 
> If the people here weren't 98.5 percent white, we'd call it a reservation.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> Kick them out and we wouldn't have the money or the people to pay for welfare for Republicans.
> 
> After all, Republicans are NOT going to get job training or go to school.  They just don't.  It's to hard and they  hate that kind of work.
Click to expand...


"The economy" is an abstraction, so when you claim it will cost the economy 'X' amount, you aren't saying anything about how it affects actual people.  That fact is that The DACA people consume more than $400 billion in goods and services, so the net result will be positive for native born Americans.

The real cost to employers will be the higher wages they have to pay native born Americans.  Of course, you aren't going to come out against higher wages. 

The claim that Americans benefit from illegals doesn't pass the laugh test.  Every American knows he is being harmed by the presence of low-skill low-wage labor.  Anyone who resorts to this "logic" is getting desperate.


----------



## deanrd

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
Click to expand...

Hilarious! And at the time Republicans were so proud they blackmailed the president. They said he caved. 
The GOP has no problem screwing over millions of Americans. Look at CHIP and healthcare and their tax cuts for the rich and so on.


----------



## BULLDOG

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of removing nearly 700,000 workers from the U.S. workforce would be staggering.
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
Click to expand...


You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well dayum, son deanrd posted links to support his premise but all I see from you is hot air. Your personal opinion don't mean shyt around here.
Click to expand...

No - deanrd simply posted "links" to opinion pieces, which mean just as much as yours or mine. The fact that he is parroting the leftist party line does NOT give it validity.

You'll notice I didn't claim your dysfunction was isolated to you - in fact, it infects the left entirely.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no reason to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just don't get it, do you?
> 
> You throw all this out there, distort the reality, and then fabricate what you believe the response of Republicans would be. Then, you compound this charade by using your fabrications as proof for other misstatements, distortions, and outright lies.
> 
> Must feel like you're standing in quicksand, and the truth is pulling you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More hot air from a kool- aid drinker.
Click to expand...

That's it? That's the best you got???

You need to go back to the leftist propaganda pump, and get a refill. You're running on hot air.


----------



## Spare_change

deanrd said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious! And at the time Republicans were so proud they blackmailed the president. They said he caved.
> The GOP has no problem screwing over millions of Americans. Look at CHIP and healthcare and their tax cuts for the rich and so on.
Click to expand...

Yeah --- let's do that. Let's look at CHIP, healthcare, and tax cuts. Are you SURE you want me to do that?

CHIP - that's the program that Republicans have proposed a 6 year renewal, and Democrats refused. You know, the CHIP program - the one that's going to kill kids. I guess Democrats don't care, huh?

Healthcare - that's the Democrat program that drove the cost/availability of healthcare out of the reach of the average middle class American - and then, when they couldn't afford it, Democrats compounded the problem by fining those who didn't have enough money to pay for it. We probably don't need to talk about the loss of doctors, or the doctors who have refused to accept government-insured patients. I'll give you a very specific example - 43% of the doctors in Colorado Springs, CO refuse to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare patients. Way to go, Dems ---- you must be ever so proud. 

Tax cuts - 88% of Americans get tax relief, and you want to bitch because the top 1% was included in that? Let me guess - you want to make the incredibly stupid argument that those who made more money got back more tax money - all the while conveniently forgetting that taxes are based on a monetary base, so those who have more money will arithmetically receive more return. You probably don't want to talk about those jobs being created, or the bonuses being paid, or the wage increases that are a direct result of the tax cut legislation. You know - the legislation, the jobs, the bonuses, and the wage increases that the Democrats voted against en masse. Just makes you warm inside, doesn't it?


----------



## Spare_change

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?
Click to expand...


i rest my case - leftists suffer from a collective cognitive disorder ....

or, as the "common folk" say ---- terminal stupidity.

I feel sorry for your survivors.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Spare_change said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh .... naivete' .... it is sooooo comforting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a 1000 mile wall and there will be a 1000 tunnels underneath it.  Make it 40 feet high, and they'll bring a 41' ladder.
> 
> The only way to truly secure the border is with motion detectors (that they can't see) and more border patrol stations who can respond quickly.  If they can't see it--they won't even attempt to cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ins and outs of U.S.-Mexico border tunnels
> 
> *If this wall is built it will be the biggest boondoggle and waste of taxpayer dollars ever.  Trump said that Mexico would pay for it.  They won't, so why should U.S. taxpayers pay for a worthless wall.*
> 
> The 21.6 billion is for materials ONLY.
> 
> At the end of this video it will explain the over *250 tunnels* they have found and they know there are many others they haven't found.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, don't expect a trumpanzee to be swayed by the truth / facts you've posted above - they rely on emotion and believe every word and tweet Trump expresses.
> 
> Even when he flips and flops on issues, they will agree with him on each flip and each flop.  It truly is amazing, albeit an embarrassment to thinking American patriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe this innocuous bullshit only because you WANT to believe it. Reality is of no concern to you.
Click to expand...


If my "bullshit" was "innocuous" (not harmful or offensive), you would not have reacted with such a childish ad hominem.   Clearly you're a) a Trumpanzee, and b) have a limited vocabulary.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well dayum, son deanrd posted links to support his premise but all I see from you is hot air. Your personal opinion don't mean shyt around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - deanrd simply posted "links" to opinion pieces, which mean just as much as yours or mine. The fact that he is parroting the leftist party line does NOT give it validity.
> 
> You'll notice I didn't claim your dysfunction was isolated to you - in fact, it infects the left entirely.
Click to expand...


So where is the RW opinion piece that feeds you? Or are you just grabbing bits and pieces out of thin air just to feel valued?
Just because you attack the veracity of a link based on your own personal assessment doesn't make you the sole judge or arbiter of truth.  None of your denials have any substance without some credible validation.
You don't seem to have any.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious! And at the time Republicans were so proud they blackmailed the president. They said he caved.
> The GOP has no problem screwing over millions of Americans. Look at CHIP and healthcare and their tax cuts for the rich and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah --- let's do that. Let's look at CHIP, healthcare, and tax cuts. Are you SURE you want me to do that?
> 
> CHIP - that's the program that Republicans have proposed a 6 year renewal, and Democrats refused. You know, the CHIP program - the one that's going to kill kids. I guess Democrats don't care, huh?
> 
> Healthcare - that's the Democrat program that drove the cost/availability of healthcare out of the reach of the average middle class American - and then, when they couldn't afford it, Democrats compounded the problem by fining those who didn't have enough money to pay for it. We probably don't need to talk about the loss of doctors, or the doctors who have refused to accept government-insured patients. I'll give you a very specific example - 43% of the doctors in Colorado Springs, CO refuse to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare patients. Way to go, Dems ---- you must be ever so proud.
> 
> Tax cuts - 88% of Americans get tax relief, and you want to bitch because the top 1% was included in that? Let me guess - you want to make the incredibly stupid argument that those who made more money got back more tax money - all the while conveniently forgetting that taxes are based on a monetary base, so those who have more money will arithmetically receive more return. You probably don't want to talk about those jobs being created, or the bonuses being paid, or the wage increases that are a direct result of the tax cut legislation. You know - the legislation, the jobs, the bonuses, and the wage increases that the Democrats voted against en masse. Just makes you warm inside, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Most of what you said is rubbish or outright lies.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no reason to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just don't get it, do you?
> 
> You throw all this out there, distort the reality, and then fabricate what you believe the response of Republicans would be. Then, you compound this charade by using your fabrications as proof for other misstatements, distortions, and outright lies.
> 
> Must feel like you're standing in quicksand, and the truth is pulling you down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More hot air from a kool- aid drinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's it? That's the best you got???
> 
> You need to go back to the leftist propaganda pump, and get a refill. You're running on hot air.
Click to expand...

YAWWWNNNNNN.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well dayum, son deanrd posted links to support his premise but all I see from you is hot air. Your personal opinion don't mean shyt around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - deanrd simply posted "links" to opinion pieces, which mean just as much as yours or mine. The fact that he is parroting the leftist party line does NOT give it validity.
> 
> You'll notice I didn't claim your dysfunction was isolated to you - in fact, it infects the left entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is the RW opinion piece that feeds you? Or are you just grabbing bits and pieces out of thin air just to feel valued?
> Just because you attack the veracity of a link based on your own personal assessment doesn't make you the sole judge or arbiter of truth.  None of your denials have any substance without some credible validation.
> You don't seem to have any.
Click to expand...

Funny stuff - you come in here, spewing garbage out of the liberal honey wagon, expecting everybody to be as brainwashed as you are. Then, when somebody has the temerity to possibly suggest that your commentary is wrong, you have no legitimate response. I don't deal in "RW opinion piece" regurgitation. I deal in facts - something you seem to only have a passing familiarity with.

Well done - your Aunt Edna would be proud of you.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i rest my case - leftists suffer from a collective cognitive disorder ....
> 
> or, as the "common folk" say ---- terminal stupidity.
> 
> I feel sorry for your survivors.
Click to expand...

You never had a case. Sheep like ewe usually don't.


----------



## JQPublic1

Spare_change said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i rest my case - leftists suffer from a collective cognitive disorder ....
> 
> or, as the "common folk" say ---- terminal stupidity.
> 
> I feel sorry for your survivors.
Click to expand...

You've proven just the opposite...that fool looking back at you in the mirror isn't a leftist or true conservative....he's just a fool.


----------



## Wry Catcher

BULLDOG said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic impact of investigating, indicting, prosecuting, and incarcerating rape and murder _is_ staggering. But that isn’t even a remotely reasonable excuse for not doing it.
> 
> Besides...don’t even pretend for a moment that you progressives give a shit about being fiscally conscious. You people cheered like hell as Barack Insane Obama added a staggering, mind-numbing $10 trillion to the national debt. You made every excuse in the world and thought it was fantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt, by the time Obama became president, they had already raped the country and taken away a means to grow revenue.  Then the incredibly costly unpaid for wars.  And after all their damage to the economy and the world, they had the nerve and the gall to blackmail Obama using the unemployed as hostage the dirtball fukers.
> 
> Unemployment benefits: not until Bush tax cuts pass, Senate GOP says
> 
> And to this day, Republicans blame their failures and their damage to the country on the guy who saved their a$$e$.
> These people are dishonest.  No wonder they elected a con man as president.  They look to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?
Click to expand...


Not the rest of the world, their are others around the world as hate filled, greedy and bigoted who have the same callous disregard for other human beings as do the neofascists, aka, the right wingers.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion


Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?

Another Trump hoax bites the dust.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hilarious! And at the time Republicans were so proud they blackmailed the president. They said he caved.
> The GOP has no problem screwing over millions of Americans. Look at CHIP and healthcare and their tax cuts for the rich and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah --- let's do that. Let's look at CHIP, healthcare, and tax cuts. Are you SURE you want me to do that?
> 
> CHIP - that's the program that Republicans have proposed a 6 year renewal, and Democrats refused. You know, the CHIP program - the one that's going to kill kids. I guess Democrats don't care, huh?
> 
> Healthcare - that's the Democrat program that drove the cost/availability of healthcare out of the reach of the average middle class American - and then, when they couldn't afford it, Democrats compounded the problem by fining those who didn't have enough money to pay for it. We probably don't need to talk about the loss of doctors, or the doctors who have refused to accept government-insured patients. I'll give you a very specific example - 43% of the doctors in Colorado Springs, CO refuse to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or Tricare patients. Way to go, Dems ---- you must be ever so proud.
> 
> Tax cuts - 88% of Americans get tax relief, and you want to bitch because the top 1% was included in that? Let me guess - you want to make the incredibly stupid argument that those who made more money got back more tax money - all the while conveniently forgetting that taxes are based on a monetary base, so those who have more money will arithmetically receive more return. You probably don't want to talk about those jobs being created, or the bonuses being paid, or the wage increases that are a direct result of the tax cut legislation. You know - the legislation, the jobs, the bonuses, and the wage increases that the Democrats voted against en masse. Just makes you warm inside, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of what you said is rubbish or outright lies.
Click to expand...

Pick one - prove it.


----------



## Spare_change

JQPublic1 said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense. You have no moral character that prevents you from publishing distortion and downright lies?
> 
> It sucks to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, he didn't tell the truth .... and you didn't live thru it. It's just convenient for you to remember history incorrectly. The ability of the left to distort reality, to pervert the truth, and to simply fabricate things remains their only weapon. You look at history thru glasses distorted by shame, and try to justify your position by coloring anything resembling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i rest my case - leftists suffer from a collective cognitive disorder ....
> 
> or, as the "common folk" say ---- terminal stupidity.
> 
> I feel sorry for your survivors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven just the opposite...that fool looking back at you in the mirror isn't a leftist or true conservative....he's just a fool.
Click to expand...

Ooooooh!!!! Zing!! Right thru the heart.

I am crushed.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
Click to expand...


When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?

You only proved that you're a dumbass.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
Click to expand...

Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.

So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?

Huh!

Another Trump hoax bites the dust.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
Click to expand...

"Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.

Take some classes in basic English.


----------



## hazlnut

Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...


----------



## hazlnut

*WALL THIS, PENDEJOS! *

*




*


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.
> 
> Take some classes in basic English.
Click to expand...


So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?  

I think you are confused.


----------



## g5000

Ultralight Aircraft Used to Smuggle Drugs Across Border


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.
> 
> Take some classes in basic English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?
> 
> I think you are confused.
Click to expand...


Read what I posted, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> Ultralight Aircraft Used to Smuggle Drugs Across Border



Minimum cost of such an aircraft:  $5000.  Plus, you have to know how to fly one.  How many Mexican peasants do you think can manage that?  These people don't even have highschool diplomas.


----------



## Spare_change

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
Click to expand...

Childish. Makes you just want to stomp your feet up and down, doesn't it?


----------



## Spare_change

hazlnut said:


> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...


Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.


----------



## P@triot

deanrd said:


> Funny, Republicans passed trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy. Not only did they grow a previously non existent debt


Man does the left-wing false narrative have itself burrowed deep into your shallow brain. Cutting taxes doesn't create debt. Spending does.

And the unconstitutional spending of the Dumbocrats have created unsustainable debt for the U.S.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?


Yeah...we all did live through it JQ. And here are the indisputable facts:

Unemployment was at 7% when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to over 10%

The national debt was at $10 trillion when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to $20 trillion

Energy, food, and healthcare prices skyrocketed under Obama.

Savings, income, and prosperity plummeted under Obama.

The American people turned over the entire nation to the Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms and the recovery began.

Those are the facts and they are absolutely indisputable.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> You RWNJs have an entirely different reality than the rest of the world, don't you?


You want “reality”? Here is a heaping helping of it, buttercup. 



 

Now come on Bull(shit) - tell us all how Barack Insane Obama “saved” to world but Republicans “tricked” everyone into punishing the Dumbocrats for his astounding success. Take your time. We’ll wait.


----------



## P@triot

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it? Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
Click to expand...

Oh...so you _still_ need this explained to you? 

All President Trump has to do is withhold aid to Mexico and tell them they *never* see another dime if they don’t pay for the wall. Take the aid, place it towards the wall. Boom - Mexico paid for the wall.

I’ve explained this to G-String more than 14 times already. I can’t tell if she’s really this dumb or if she’s pretending.


----------



## P@triot

g5000 said:


> Ultralight Aircraft Used to Smuggle Drugs Across Border


Ultralight aircraft used to smuggle ULTRALIGHT drugs across the border. People weigh more than a kilo, _stupid_.


----------



## regent

So the wall will keep out every illegal including those that come by boat, or perhaps the wall will extend up the coasts? I wonder how far? Illegals surely cannot come by air. 
With Trump's wall America will never see another illegal again.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultralight Aircraft Used to Smuggle Drugs Across Border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum cost of such an aircraft:  $5000.  Plus, you have to know how to fly one.  How many Mexican peasants do you think can manage that?  These people don't even have highschool diplomas.
Click to expand...


$5000 probably won't be much of a problem for the cartels.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it?
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.
> 
> Take some classes in basic English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I posted, dumbass.
Click to expand...

 Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He told the truth. We all lived through it. Why do you damn RW slobs try to change reality when you're cornered.?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...we all did live through it JQ. And here are the indisputable facts:
> 
> Unemployment was at 7% when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to over 10%
> 
> The national debt was at $10 trillion when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to $20 trillion
> 
> Energy, food, and healthcare prices skyrocketed under Obama.
> 
> Savings, income, and prosperity plummeted under Obama.
> 
> The American people turned over the entire nation to the Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms and the recovery began.
> 
> Those are the facts and they are absolutely indisputable.
Click to expand...


According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted figures, the U.S. lost 779,000 jobs in January 2009, which was Bush’s last month in office. The U.S. lost approximately 3,526,000 jobs in Bush’s last six months.

More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.


Over $10 trillion in debt from outrageous, unconstitutional spending. Energy, food, and healthcare costs skyrocketing. Expansion of the surveillance state. The most corrupt administration in U.S. _history_. 

I wonder why Republicans control everything coast-to-coast right now.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.


Most of those occurred upon the news that Barack Insane Obama had actually won the election. He campaigned on contempt for wealth and success while raving about marxism. Of course businesses are going to panic and tighten their belt at the news that he would be sitting in the Oval Office.


----------



## KissMy

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those occurred upon the news that Barack Insane Obama had actually won the election. He campaigned on contempt for wealth and success while raving about marxism. Of course businesses are going to panic and tighten their belt at the news that he would be sitting in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

You Repubtards have seriously fantastic mental gymnastics issues.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it? Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...so you _still_ need this explained to you?
> 
> All President Trump has to do is withhold aid to Mexico and tell them they *never* see another dime if they don’t pay for the wall. Take the aid, place it towards the wall. Boom - Mexico paid for the wall.
> 
> I’ve explained this to G-String more than 14 times already. I can’t tell if she’s really this dumb or if she’s pretending.
Click to expand...

What Dims mean when they say Mexico will never pay for the wall is that Dims will never allow Mexico to pay for the wall.  They are going to obstruct any proposal to make Mexico pay for the wall.  They are going to obstruct the wall period, no matter who pays for it.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> So the wall will keep out every illegal including those that come by boat, or perhaps the wall will extend up the coasts? I wonder how far? Illegals surely cannot come by air.
> With Trump's wall America will never see another illegal again.



Who has said that, snowflake?


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did Trump claim Mexico has already paid for it?
> 
> You only proved that you're a dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.
> 
> Take some classes in basic English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I posted, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.
Click to expand...


A big fat totaly lie, of course.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultralight Aircraft Used to Smuggle Drugs Across Border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum cost of such an aircraft:  $5000.  Plus, you have to know how to fly one.  How many Mexican peasants do you think can manage that?  These people don't even have highschool diplomas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $5000 probably won't be much of a problem for the cartels.
Click to expand...


Ultralights show up on radar just like regular planes.  Stopping drug catels is just a side benefit of the wall, not its primary purpose.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Now you are telling us it will cost the US $21.6 billion.
> 
> So Mexico hasn't paid for it like Trump promised you they would?
> 
> Huh!
> 
> Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> "Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.
> 
> Take some classes in basic English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I posted, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A big fat totaly lie, of course.
Click to expand...

Of course short fat Trump totally lied!


----------



## bripat9643

Spare_change said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
Click to expand...


The wall in that photo is only 10' high.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Is going to pay for it" isn't the same thing as "has already paid for it,"  dumbass.
> 
> Take some classes in basic English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what I posted, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A big fat totaly lie, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course short fat Trump totally lied!
Click to expand...

You lied.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.
> 
> 
> 
> Over $10 trillion in debt from outrageous, unconstitutional spending. Energy, food, and healthcare costs skyrocketing. Expansion of the surveillance state. The most corrupt administration in U.S. _history_.
> 
> I wonder why Republicans control everything coast-to-coast right now.
Click to expand...


Of course healthcare costs are rising, people are living longer, and the technological costs have increased.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so Mexico hasn't paid for it? Another Trump hoax bites the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...so you _still_ need this explained to you?
> 
> All President Trump has to do is withhold aid to Mexico and tell them they *never* see another dime if they don’t pay for the wall. Take the aid, place it towards the wall. Boom - Mexico paid for the wall.
> 
> I’ve explained this to G-String more than 14 times already. I can’t tell if she’s really this dumb or if she’s pretending.
Click to expand...


What's the benefits of having a wall, as opposed to cracking down on those who hire illegals?


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So "it will cost $21.6 billion" means "it won't cost $21.6 billion"?
> 
> I think you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I posted, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A big fat totaly lie, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course short fat Trump totally lied!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied.
Click to expand...

You Lie

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.

That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I posted, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A big fat totaly lie, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course short fat Trump totally lied!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie
> 
> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.
> 
> That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!
Click to expand...


A report published by the Obama administration?

Case closed.

You lie.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass - Trump promised the wall would only cost $4 billion & Mexico would pay, now $21.6 billion is only the down payment on the $70 billion wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A big fat totaly lie, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course short fat Trump totally lied!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie
> 
> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.
> 
> That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A report published by the Obama administration?
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> You lie.
Click to expand...

Report dated April 18, 2017 during Trump administration.

You're a Dumb-ass, Case closed.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those occurred upon the news that Barack Insane Obama had actually won the election. He campaigned on contempt for wealth and success while raving about marxism. Of course businesses are going to panic and tighten their belt at the news that he would be sitting in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...


Even you aren't dumb enough to believe that.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultralight Aircraft Used to Smuggle Drugs Across Border
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minimum cost of such an aircraft:  $5000.  Plus, you have to know how to fly one.  How many Mexican peasants do you think can manage that?  These people don't even have highschool diplomas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $5000 probably won't be much of a problem for the cartels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ultralights show up on radar just like regular planes.  Stopping drug catels is just a side benefit of the wall, not its primary purpose.
Click to expand...


Not what Trump-o and RWNJs are saying.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those occurred upon the news that Barack Insane Obama had actually won the election. He campaigned on contempt for wealth and success while raving about marxism. Of course businesses are going to panic and tighten their belt at the news that he would be sitting in the Oval Office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you aren't dumb enough to believe that.
Click to expand...

It’s not something to “believe”, sparky. It happened. The economy took a sudden nose dive upon news that Barack Insane Obama had won. Just like it took a sudden spike upon news that Donald Trump had won.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> Unemployment was at 7% when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to over 10%


Considering the mess he was handed Obama worked a miracle. He handed Trump a healthy thriving economy with an unemployment rate of 5%. All the good things happening today are mini legacies of Obama. Trump has done little but take credit for things he didn't do..



P@triot said:


> The national debt was at $10 trillion when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to $20 trillion


We know how that happened and it wasn't Obama's fault. Bush's rwo unbudgeted wars , the stimulus packages, the big bank bailouts, and Bush's big tax cuts for the rich, all taking place simultaneously, tells wise men that the new president was being set up to fail...but he didn't. He weathered the storm and restored the American economy ...damn! what a leader.





P@triot said:


> Energy, food, and healthcare prices skyrocketed under Obama.


I'm not so sure about that. But check out over 500 accomplishments
The Obama Legacy is Secure



P@triot said:


> Savings, income, and prosperity plummeted under Obama.



Nope...corporate profits increased by over 160%. Savings and prosperity rebounded under Obama and now Trump is trying to take the credit.



P@triot said:


> The American people turned over the entire nation to the Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms and the recovery began.


Well not entirely...The Feds kept inflation at bay by keeping interest rates down.  The Republicans was a "do nothing" gang that openly stated they wanted the president to fail. And they followed through on that wish by becoming obstructionists. Obama had no help from the GOP and he still prevailed.



P@triot said:


> Those are the facts and they are absolutely indisputable.



And the responses I gave put those facts and half truths in perspective.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unemployment was at 7% when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to over 10%
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the mess he was handed Obama worked a miracle. He handed Trump a healthy thriving economy with an unemployment rate of 5%. All the good things happening today are mini legacies of Obama. Trump has done little but take credit for things he didn't do..
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The national debt was at $10 trillion when Barack Insane Obama took over. He took it to $20 trillion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know how that happened and it wasn't Obama's fault. Bush's rwo unbudgeted wars , the stimulus packages, the big bank bailouts, and Bush's big tax cuts for the rich, all taking place simultaneously, tells wise men that the new president was being set up to fail...but he didn't. He weathered the storm and restored the American economy ...damn! what a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy, food, and healthcare prices skyrocketed under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not so sure about that. But check out over 500 accomplishments
> The Obama Legacy is Secure
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Savings, income, and prosperity plummeted under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope...corporate profits increased by over 160%. Savings and prosperity rebounded under Obama and now Trump is trying to take the credit.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people turned over the entire nation to the Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms and the recovery began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not entirely...The Feds kept inflation at bay by keeping interest rates down.  The Republicans was a "do nothing" gang that openly stated they wanted the president to fail. And they followed through on that wish by becoming obstructionists. Obama had no help from the GOP and he still prevailed.
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the facts and they are absolutely indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the responses I gave put those facts and half truths in perspective.
Click to expand...


----------



## KissMy

Spare_change said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
Click to expand...

You are the real lying troll.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
Click to expand...

Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> He weathered the storm and restored the American economy ...damn! what a leader.


He created the storm and did his best to collapse the U.S. The American people turned the entire nation over to the Republicans in the 2010 midterms. The recovery began to just “magically” occur shortly after that.

You know it too. But you have such a man-crush on Obama that you can’t bring yourself to admit it.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the facts and they are absolutely indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> And the responses I gave put those facts and half truths in perspective.
Click to expand...

The response you just gave is pure idiotic propaganda. You didn’t add one fact. You had no data. And you can’t even bring yourself to admit that the entire nation was turned over to the Republicans in the 2010 midterms (Barack Insane Obama himself called it a “shellacking”).


----------



## Wyatt earp

KissMy said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
Click to expand...



If Mexicans have that much ingenuity why the fuck they coming here????


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the facts and they are absolutely indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> And the responses I gave put those facts and half truths in perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The response you just gave is pure idiotic propaganda. You didn’t add one fact. You had no data. And you can’t even bring yourself to admit that the entire nation was turned over to the Republicans in the 2010 midterms (Barack Insane Obama himself called it a “shellacking”).
Click to expand...


It's all history,  chum. Read it and weep. Slobbering. And crying can't change it and denial won't either. Obama rocked and he still does.
And although the Tea Party surrogates in the GOP took over the House in mid term Obama was still president......and would remain so for another term. That's not handing the entire government over to the GOP.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He weathered the storm and restored the American economy ...damn! what a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> He created the storm and did his best to collapse the U.S. The American people turned the entire nation over to the Republicans in the 2010 midterms. The recovery began to just “magically” occur shortly after that.
> 
> You know it too. But you have such a man-crush on Obama that you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm a realist...you are hallucinating.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He weathered the storm and restored the American economy ...damn! what a leader.
> 
> 
> 
> He created the storm and did his best to collapse the U.S. The American people turned the entire nation over to the Republicans in the 2010 midterms. The recovery began to just “magically” occur shortly after that.
> 
> You know it too. But you have such a man-crush on Obama that you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
Click to expand...

Now you want eyewitnesses to history to bbelievea do nothing Congress was responsible for the 500 accomplishments of Obama I linked to earlier....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than 3.5 million jobs lost in the last 6 months before Obama took over. I wonder why unemployment went up.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those occurred upon the news that Barack Insane Obama had actually won the election. He campaigned on contempt for wealth and success while raving about marxism. Of course businesses are going to panic and tighten their belt at the news that he would be sitting in the Oval Office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even you aren't dumb enough to believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not something to “believe”, sparky. It happened. The economy took a sudden nose dive upon news that Barack Insane Obama had won. Just like it took a sudden spike upon news that Donald Trump had won.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are wayyyyy out there. The scary thing is that you really believe that shyt.
You really need to see a psychiatrist. You keep seeing things that aren't there.. Its as if you've lost your reasoning ability to remote mind control.


----------



## KissMy

*Undocumented Cost / Benefit*

$26 Billion Annual Taxes Paid by Undocumented
$24 Billion Annual cost Border / Justice
$10 Billion Trump Annual Increase Border Security
$60 Billion Cost to try to Stop Undocumented

$135 Billion Cost of Undocumented
$60 Billion Cost to try to Stop Undocumented
$75 Billion Savings if Undocumented are Stopped

Stopping Undocumented we will have to punish their employers & start showing our papers. That will decrease economic activity by $400 Billion

However, Legal Immigrants earned $1.3 trillion and contributed $105 billion in state and local taxes and nearly $224 billion in federal taxes in 2014, They had $927 billion in consumer spending power. Foreigners &  Immigrants helped create & build our modern economy.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


legal status is a social construct; capitalism doesn't care.  money just needs to circulate.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
Click to expand...


Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
Click to expand...


The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
Click to expand...

Of course steps will be put into the 30' wall so factories and farms can get their  cheap labor.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Obama was still president......and would remain so for another term. That's not handing the entire government over to the GOP.


Snowflake...the President of the United States does not set federal tax law - Congress does. The President of the United States does not set state tax law - state legislatures do.

There is a reason that Barack Insane Obama *failed* _miserably_ for two years when he had complete and total control (because the Dumbocrats in Congress surrendered the people’s power over to him) - his marxist policies are idiotic.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Obama rocked and he still does.


_Someone_ has a really disturbing man-crush on Barack Insane Obama...


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> It's all history,  chum.


Exactly! Everything I stated was well documented history. I have no idea why you even _attempted_ to argue it. Idiotic.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpies have so little imagination... or brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
Click to expand...

Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
Click to expand...

If you don’t know the difference between 10 feet and 30 feet then you really shouldn’t be on this forum discussing _anything_.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all history,  chum.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Everything I stated was well documented history. I have no idea why you even _attempted_ to argue it. Idiotic.
Click to expand...


Your version of history is distorted and incomplete.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high.
Click to expand...

Snowflake...if the wall you posted (from Iraq) is 20 feet high then that truck is a remarkable 16 feet tall.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all history,  chum.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Everything I stated was well documented history. I have no idea why you even _attempted_ to argue it. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version of history is distorted and incomplete.
Click to expand...

And yet I was the _only_ one adding data and facts while you were adding homoerotic overtones like “Obama rocked and still does”.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama rocked and he still does.
> 
> 
> 
> _Someone_ has a really disturbing man-crush on Barack Insane Obama...
Click to expand...


Naw....thats just your latent homosexual tendencies causing you to imagine all sorts of wierd stuff. You're too wierd for me....see ya.


----------



## KissMy

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake...if the wall you posted (from Iraq) is 20 feet high then that truck is a remarkable 16 feet tall.
Click to expand...

Learn to read retard!

That 8'ft+ cab is half way up that 15'ft wall




That SUV is 17'ft long. Same as wall if stood on end




Here is your basic 6'ft


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
Click to expand...

It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.

As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


>


Trying to figure out why you keep posting pictures of vehicles driving over 3 foot platforms...


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama rocked and he still does.
> 
> 
> 
> _Someone_ has a really disturbing man-crush on Barack Insane Obama...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naw....thats just your latent homosexual tendencies causing you to imagine all sorts of wierd stuff. You're too wierd for me....see ya.
Click to expand...

“Weird” is JQP’s dog-whistle for “informed and educated”.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
Click to expand...


BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
Click to expand...

That truck cab will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
Click to expand...


A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
Click to expand...


God, you're stupid. Every inch of the Israel wall is easily visible from manned towers spaced evenly around the wall. You planning on having a manned guard tower every couple of hundred feet for more than 2000 miles?


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, you're stupid. Every inch of the Israel wall is easily visible from manned towers spaced evenly around the wall. You planning on having a manned guard tower every couple of hundred feet for more than 2000 miles?
Click to expand...


One every two miles would be more than sufficient.  Do you actually believe the border gaurd isn't going to watch the wall?  

Snowflakes are a special kind of stupid.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.
Click to expand...


Have you ever stood beside a pickup? You are showing your ignorance. Nobody is making you do it.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever stood beside a pickup? You are showing your ignorance. Nobody is making you do it.
Click to expand...

I used to own an F150 crewcab, moron.  I know how tall they are.  I could see over the cab.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever stood beside a pickup? You are showing your ignorance. Nobody is making you do it.
Click to expand...


2017 Ford® F-150 XL Truck | Model Highlights | Ford.com

Cab height - 75.5 in. 76.9 in. 75.1 in. 76.9 in.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




It was only a matter of time before you idiots started making excuses for *Trump's lying about who was going to pay for it*.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here




Exactly.  Farmers, ranchers, manufacturers pay low wages under the table to illegals and avoid FICA, health insurance, unemployment and workman's comp.  I don't know why this hasn't dawned over the dulled, myopic heads of the Trumpanzees.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever stood beside a pickup? You are showing your ignorance. Nobody is making you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to own an F150 crewcab, moron.  I know how tall they are.  I could see over the cab.
Click to expand...


That truck has at least a foot or more of lift. Look at the front fender. How tall are you?


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever stood beside a pickup? You are showing your ignorance. Nobody is making you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2017 Ford® F-150 XL Truck | Model Highlights | Ford.com
> 
> Cab height - 75.5 in. 76.9 in. 75.1 in. 76.9 in.
Click to expand...


All well over 6 ft. How tall are you?


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, the first wall can't be more than 10' high, and the second might be 12' high.  The cabs of trucks like that are more like 6' high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That truck will never clear a standard 7' garage door even without that lift kit it has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pickup truck can be garaged.  The lift kit will make it a little taller.   Furthermore, the roof of that truck is more than halfway up that fence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever stood beside a pickup? You are showing your ignorance. Nobody is making you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2017 Ford® F-150 XL Truck | Model Highlights | Ford.com
> 
> Cab height - 75.5 in. 76.9 in. 75.1 in. 76.9 in.
Click to expand...

Try F250 4x4 with snow plow camper springs 83.5" It won' fit typical garage. Then increase tires & lift.


----------



## KissMy

KissMy said:


> *Undocumented Cost / Benefit*
> 
> $26 Billion Annual Taxes Paid by Undocumented
> $24 Billion Annual cost Border / Justice
> $10 Billion Trump Annual Increase Border Security
> $60 Billion Cost to try to Stop Undocumented
> 
> $135 Billion Cost of Undocumented
> $60 Billion Cost to try to Stop Undocumented
> $75 Billion Savings if Undocumented are Stopped
> 
> Stopping Undocumented we will have to punish their employers & start showing our papers. That will decrease economic activity by $400 Billion
> 
> However, Legal Immigrants earned $1.3 trillion and contributed $105 billion in state and local taxes and nearly $224 billion in federal taxes in 2014, They had $927 billion in consumer spending power. Foreigners &  Immigrants helped create & build our modern economy.



Is any of the education, medical & welfare money going to the undocumented immigrants? Likely it all goes to their US citizen children. So deporting the parents will increase our spending on these children. This will end up costing way MORE Tax Payer Dollars!


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
Click to expand...

Your nut-job ideas are what's full of holes. This 6x6 will do the job easy as pie for $5,000. Charge illegals $250 per car load that drives over & you're making easy money.




A  little re-fabricating of a used 65'ft car hauler makes a perfect portable wall bridge.




Or this 53'ft car trailer


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your nut-job ideas are what's full of holes. This 6x6 will do the job easy as pie for $5,000. Charge illegals $250 per car load that drives over & you're making easy money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A  little re-fabricating of a used 65'ft car hauler makes a perfect portable wall bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this 53'ft car trailer
Click to expand...


ROFL!

Why do you think border gaurds are going to passively standby while these machines siddle up to the border wall?  How are they going to get near the wall in the middle of the desert without a good road?


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your nut-job ideas are what's full of holes. This 6x6 will do the job easy as pie for $5,000. Charge illegals $250 per car load that drives over & you're making easy money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A  little re-fabricating of a used 65'ft car hauler makes a perfect portable wall bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this 53'ft car trailer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Why do you think border gaurds are going to passively standby while these machines siddle up to the border wall?  How are they going to get near the wall in the middle of the desert without a good road?
Click to expand...


Those 6x6 semi tractors don't need roads. I've moved houses across fields, baron land, rivers & wilderness with them.

Just because tax dollars pay 21,000 border patrol + retirement pensions which would be enough to have 14 patrolling per mile, don't mean they ever get off the couch to patrol. They just spend money. There are huge 30+ mile gaps between patrols in Texas & the Coyotes have all their movements timed & monitored. The only reason the others were discovered is because drivers error getting stuck on ramps

This is just a huge scam to spend more Tax Money. They will not save any money!


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your nut-job ideas are what's full of holes. This 6x6 will do the job easy as pie for $5,000. Charge illegals $250 per car load that drives over & you're making easy money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A  little re-fabricating of a used 65'ft car hauler makes a perfect portable wall bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this 53'ft car trailer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Why do you think border gaurds are going to passively standby while these machines siddle up to the border wall?  How are they going to get near the wall in the middle of the desert without a good road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those 6x6 semi tractors don't need roads. I've moved houses across fields, baron land, rivers & wilderness with them.
> 
> Just because tax dollars pay 21,000 border patrol + retirement pensions which would be enough to have 14 patrolling per mile, don't mean they ever get off the couch to patrol. They just spend money. There are huge 30+ mile gaps between patrols in Texas & the Coyotes have all their movements timed & monitored. The only reason the others were discovered is because drivers error getting stuck on ramps
> 
> This is just a huge scam to spend more Tax Money. They will not save any money!
Click to expand...


Even more reason to build the wall, fool.   I have never seen any articles claiming illegals drove over the wall.  Why would they?  If they have a truck, they can just drive to a place where there is no wall.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those walls are 20'ft & 15'ft respectively. That Jeep is over 20'ft long & the cab of that bridging truck is 8'ft high. Just double the steel & they are driving over 30'ft walls all day every day.
> 
> 
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your nut-job ideas are what's full of holes. This 6x6 will do the job easy as pie for $5,000. Charge illegals $250 per car load that drives over & you're making easy money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A  little re-fabricating of a used 65'ft car hauler makes a perfect portable wall bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this 53'ft car trailer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Why do you think border gaurds are going to passively standby while these machines siddle up to the border wall?  How are they going to get near the wall in the middle of the desert without a good road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those 6x6 semi tractors don't need roads. I've moved houses across fields, baron land, rivers & wilderness with them.
> 
> Just because tax dollars pay 21,000 border patrol + retirement pensions which would be enough to have 14 patrolling per mile, don't mean they ever get off the couch to patrol. They just spend money. There are huge 30+ mile gaps between patrols in Texas & the Coyotes have all their movements timed & monitored. The only reason the others were discovered is because drivers error getting stuck on ramps
> 
> This is just a huge scam to spend more Tax Money. They will not save any money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more reason to build the wall, fool.   I have never seen any articles claiming illegals drove over the wall.  Why would they?  If they have a truck, they can just drive to a place where there is no wall.
Click to expand...

No - It's all the more reason to put foot up the ass of Border Patrol we pay for to stop this shit. Why can I look on Google Satellite along the border & not see a Border Patrol for 30 miles when we pay for 14 per mile?


----------



## sedwin

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Any distraction at all to avoid the flip flop of every single conservative now admitting Trump lied a hundred times about Mexico paying for the wall and Republican's saying for eight years they are ONLY concerned about the deficit and must ALWAYS have an offset.  Lies, hypocrisy or both?


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more like multiply the steel by a factor of four. To go over a 30' wall the contraption would be so big you would need a semi-truck to haul it around.  Then you have to haul it out to the middle of the desert with no roads.
> 
> As usual, leftwing schemes to get over the wall are full of holes.  If your schemes worked, why hasn't anyone tried them in Israel or Austria?
> 
> 
> 
> Your nut-job ideas are what's full of holes. This 6x6 will do the job easy as pie for $5,000. Charge illegals $250 per car load that drives over & you're making easy money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A  little re-fabricating of a used 65'ft car hauler makes a perfect portable wall bridge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this 53'ft car trailer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!
> 
> Why do you think border gaurds are going to passively standby while these machines siddle up to the border wall?  How are they going to get near the wall in the middle of the desert without a good road?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those 6x6 semi tractors don't need roads. I've moved houses across fields, baron land, rivers & wilderness with them.
> 
> Just because tax dollars pay 21,000 border patrol + retirement pensions which would be enough to have 14 patrolling per mile, don't mean they ever get off the couch to patrol. They just spend money. There are huge 30+ mile gaps between patrols in Texas & the Coyotes have all their movements timed & monitored. The only reason the others were discovered is because drivers error getting stuck on ramps
> 
> This is just a huge scam to spend more Tax Money. They will not save any money!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more reason to build the wall, fool.   I have never seen any articles claiming illegals drove over the wall.  Why would they?  If they have a truck, they can just drive to a place where there is no wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No - It's all the more reason to put foot up the ass of Border Patrol we pay for to stop this shit. Why can I look on Google Satellite along the border & not see a Border Patrol for 30 miles when we pay for 14 per mile?
Click to expand...

You can't see any border patrol on Google maps, moron.  It's photograph, not a video.

First you claimed the wall wouldn't work becaue the border patrol is corrupt.  Now you're saying we should kick them in the ass and rely more on the border patrol.


----------



## danielpalos

A wall cannot be a priority; we can afford to lower taxes!


----------



## bripat9643

sedwin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Any distraction at all to avoid the flip flop of every single conservative now admitting Trump lied a hundred times about Mexico paying for the wall and Republican's saying for eight years they are ONLY concerned about the deficit and must ALWAYS have an offset.  Lies, hypocrisy or both?
Click to expand...


Who pays for the wall is a trivial issue.  Turds like you harp on it because it's the only thing you can harp on.  Mexico is going to pay for it in the end.  It's just a matter of when and how, not if.  Trump never claimed they would pay upfront.  That's purely a snowflake fetish.


----------



## danielpalos

We have no illegal problem, we can afford to lower taxes; don't worry, be happy, right wingers.


----------



## sedwin

bripat9643 said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Any distraction at all to avoid the flip flop of every single conservative now admitting Trump lied a hundred times about Mexico paying for the wall and Republican's saying for eight years they are ONLY concerned about the deficit and must ALWAYS have an offset.  Lies, hypocrisy or both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who pays for the wall is a trivial issue.  Turds like you harp on it because it's the only thing you can harp on.  Mexico is going to pay for it in the end.  It's just a matter of when and how, not if.  Trump never claimed they would pay upfront.  That's purely a snowflake fetish.
Click to expand...

Well of course it's trivial NOW.  No expense was trivial under a black man though was it?  It's hilarious that you guys screamed "Obama lied" for 8 years with regard to everything but when an old white lies - continuously and every day- suddenly lies do not matter.

Turds like you are liars and hypocrites just like Putin's Puppet, and Reality TV game Show Host Trump.

But I get your point.  When he lied and said his tax cuts would be horrible for him and his rich friends or lied about doing a bi-partisan deal on DACA, or he lied about the size of his crowd, etc ad nauseum, lies are just fine.  Just like when multiple women accuse him and he admits on tape that he assaulted women and walked in on. nude teenage girls is perfectly okay because as rich con-man he's entitled to it.  It seems the actual entitlements in this country only go to rich, racist, white men.   lmao


----------



## bripat9643

sedwin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Any distraction at all to avoid the flip flop of every single conservative now admitting Trump lied a hundred times about Mexico paying for the wall and Republican's saying for eight years they are ONLY concerned about the deficit and must ALWAYS have an offset.  Lies, hypocrisy or both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who pays for the wall is a trivial issue.  Turds like you harp on it because it's the only thing you can harp on.  Mexico is going to pay for it in the end.  It's just a matter of when and how, not if.  Trump never claimed they would pay upfront.  That's purely a snowflake fetish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well of course it's trivial NOW.  No expense was trivial under a black man though was it?  It's hilarious that you guys screamed "Obama lied" for 8 years with regard to everything but when an old white lies - continuously and every day- suddenly lies do not matter.
> 
> Turds like you are liars and hypocrites just like Putin's Puppet, and Reality TV game Show Host Trump.
> 
> But I get your point.  When he lied and said his tax cuts would be horrible for him and his rich friends or lied about doing a bi-partisan deal on DACA, or he lied about the size of his crowd, etc ad nauseum, lies are just fine.  Just like when multiple women accuse him and he admits on tape that he assaulted women and walked in on. nude teenage girls is perfectly okay because as rich con-man he's entitled to it.  It seems the actual entitlements in this country only go to rich, racist, white men.   lmao
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who pays for the wall is a trivial issue.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like who sleeps with your wife is a trivial issue.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't just like that, you fucking moron.


----------



## KissMy

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute ---- but, of course, physically impossible. When you make shit up, you need to do MUCH better. Otherwise, some here are going to think you're just a liberal troll.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the real lying troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh wow....a 10 foot fence in Iraq. Vastly different from a 30 foot wall in America, _stupid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because the rules of physics are so much different in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physics of getting over a 30' wall are a lot different than the physics of getting over a 10' wall, as in your photos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course steps will be put into the 30' wall so factories and farms can get their  cheap labor.
Click to expand...

No need for that, they installed gates to drive through.


----------



## keepitreal

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
Click to expand...




JQPublic1 said:


> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?


ROFLMMFAO

Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here! 

No matter how you slice it....

whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie, 
Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....

...either way, you'll hurt yourself!

Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
perfect for your *hand* glider


----------



## Wyatt earp

radical right said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who pays for the wall is a trivial issue.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like who sleeps with your wife is a trivial issue.
Click to expand...



You can't say that 


USMB Rules and Guidelines


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> 
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Any distraction at all to avoid the flip flop of every single conservative now admitting Trump lied a hundred times about Mexico paying for the wall and Republican's saying for eight years they are ONLY concerned about the deficit and must ALWAYS have an offset.  Lies, hypocrisy or both?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who pays for the wall is a trivial issue.  Turds like you harp on it because it's the only thing you can harp on.  Mexico is going to pay for it in the end.  It's just a matter of when and how, not if.  Trump never claimed they would pay upfront.  That's purely a snowflake fetish.
Click to expand...



It wasn't a trivial thing in his campaign speeches.


----------



## McFury

If u really think about it.
Trump can fulfill his promise of building the wall and Mexico pays for it.
Just use all the Mexican convicts in US jails as laborers and they will build it for minimum wage and a pack of cigarettes a day.


----------



## KissMy

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A big fat totaly lie, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course short fat Trump totally lied!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie
> 
> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.
> 
> That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A report published by the Obama administration?
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> You lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Report dated April 18, 2017 during Trump administration.
> 
> You're a Dumb-ass, Case closed.
Click to expand...

See Trump's $4 Billion wall price lie keeps creeping up! Trump just ask for $25 billion for the wall. It will cost $70 Billion when it's done!


----------



## JQPublic1

keepitreal said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bnag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
Click to expand...

Although my typo has left me vulnerable
to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.

How to Make Hand Gliders

And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 people across a
wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course short fat Trump totally lied!
> 
> 
> 
> You lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Lie
> 
> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.
> 
> That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A report published by the Obama administration?
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> You lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Report dated April 18, 2017 during Trump administration.
> 
> You're a Dumb-ass, Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See Trump's $4 Billion wall price lie keeps creeping up! Trump just ask for $25 billion for the wall. It will cost $70 Billion when it's done!
Click to expand...

Your claim that he said it would cost $4 billion is pure horseshit.  The $70 billion claim is also harseshit.  Just about everything you post is horseshit.


----------



## danielpalos

How much to, claim to join a circus and rent a wing suit and a mobile catapult?


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bnag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> 
> View attachment 173370
Click to expand...

You've got to be joking.  An agent with a bee bee gun can make short work of those balloons.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lied.
> 
> 
> 
> You Lie
> 
> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.
> 
> That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A report published by the Obama administration?
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> You lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Report dated April 18, 2017 during Trump administration.
> 
> You're a Dumb-ass, Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See Trump's $4 Billion wall price lie keeps creeping up! Trump just ask for $25 billion for the wall. It will cost $70 Billion when it's done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim that he said it would cost $4 billion is pure horseshit.  The $70 billion claim is also harseshit.  Just about everything you post is horseshit.
Click to expand...

You lie like Trump!

TRUMP: "You know. The Trump wall, that would be a beautiful wall. That's why I have to make it beautiful because some day when I'm gone, they are going to name that wall after Trump, I think. But I listened to these guys, and they say, how stupid - I listened to them today. Some politicians said Trump will never be able to afford the wall. We can't afford it. It's too expensive. It's peanuts. It's peanuts. It's nothing. And Mexico is going to pay. Now, here is the Mexico number, right? Let's say the wall cost *$4 billion.* You know, they say $10 billion. That means *$4 billion* if you know what you're doing and the *$4 billion* will be much bigger, much better, much stronger than the $10 billion. Believe me. Oh, do I know how to build? Greatest. One of the greats.

So, let's say it costs *$4 or $5 billion*. Our trade deficit with Mexico is $53 billion. So four or five billion is peanuts. It's peanuts. Mexico is going to pay and they will be happy. They will be happy."


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Lie
> 
> Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain. The report also found that the construction of a wall would require taking hundreds of acres of private land at a cost of millions to taxpayers and would divert money from crucial mobile video surveillance technology.
> 
> That would buy 5 aircraft carriers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A report published by the Obama administration?
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> You lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Report dated April 18, 2017 during Trump administration.
> 
> You're a Dumb-ass, Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See Trump's $4 Billion wall price lie keeps creeping up! Trump just ask for $25 billion for the wall. It will cost $70 Billion when it's done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim that he said it would cost $4 billion is pure horseshit.  The $70 billion claim is also harseshit.  Just about everything you post is horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lie like Trump!
> 
> TRUMP: "You know. The Trump wall, that would be a beautiful wall. That's why I have to make it beautiful because some day when I'm gone, they are going to name that wall after Trump, I think. But I listened to these guys, and they say, how stupid - I listened to them today. Some politicians said Trump will never be able to afford the wall. We can't afford it. It's too expensive. It's peanuts. It's peanuts. It's nothing. And Mexico is going to pay. Now, here is the Mexico number, right? Let's say the wall cost *$4 billion.* You know, they say $10 billion. That means *$4 billion* if you know what you're doing and the *$4 billion* will be much bigger, much better, much stronger than the $10 billion. Believe me. Oh, do I know how to build? Greatest. One of the greats.
> 
> So, let's say it costs *$4 or $5 billion*. Our trade deficit with Mexico is $53 billion. So four or five billion is peanuts. It's peanuts. Mexico is going to pay and they will be happy. They will be happy."
Click to expand...

"Let's say it costs $4 billion" is not a claim that the wall will cost $4 billion.

You're a lying moron.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bnag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> 
> View attachment 173370
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be joking.  An agent with a bee bee gun can make short work of those balloons.
Click to expand...

There are isolated spots along that 2000 mi. border where border patrols are scarce.
 But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> 
> View attachment 173370
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be joking.  An agent with a bee bee gun can make short work of those balloons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are isolated spots along that 2000 mi. border where border patrols are scarce.
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
Click to expand...

No it can't.  You're delusional if you imagine the border patrol wouldn't notice it.  Furthermore, few people would be suicidal enough to even attempt it.  Why haven't any of those Palestinian cookburgers tried it?


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.


Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile away. 

Not for nothing - but how exactly does one “create a diversion” with a wall? Border Patrol won’t give a shit what’s going on on then Mexican side of the wall. And they won’t be able to get on the American side without you’re hilarious hot air balloon idea.

JQPublic thinks we live in a 1930’s film! “Yeah...see...we need a diversion, dame. And then the coppers won’t know what happened”.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile



Depends on the terrain and time of day.
Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall. 
He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall. He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.


Yeah...because Donald Trump won’t possibly have a legacy without a wall. 

Let’s see...

Billionaire business mogul? Check

Best selling author? Check

Hit tv show? Check

Cameo appearances in movies? Check

President of the freaking United States of America? Check

Yeah...I don’t think a wall will even make the top 70 of his legacy.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Trump is no engineer


Which is why he isn’t designing the wall. You do realize when President Trump says he’s going to build a wall he does not mean that he, himself, will literally build the wall - don’t you?


JQPublic1 said:


> or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial...


Thankfully it doesn’t take an “expert on security” to understand that walls keep people out. That’s why your home has them.

Also - it doesn’t matter one bit what Donald Trump wants. The wall is what the American people want. That’s why they elected him.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile away.
> 
> Not for nothing - but how exactly does one “create a diversion” with a wall? Border Patrol won’t give a shit what’s going on on then Mexican side of the wall. And they won’t be able to get on the American side without you’re hilarious hot air balloon idea.
> 
> JQPublic thinks we live in a 1930’s film! “Yeah...see...we need a diversion, dame. And then the coppers won’t know what happened”.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's a three stooges film.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the terrain and time of day.
> Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall.
> He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.
Click to expand...


Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.

The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.

You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border.
> 
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.
Click to expand...

If walls don’t work - how come _every_ prison in the world has them?


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.


Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?


> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.


Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...

Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> See Trump's $4 Billion wall price lie keeps creeping up! Trump just ask for $25 billion for the wall. It will cost $70 Billion when it's done!


So what? It’s national security, snowflake. Barack Insane Obama spent more than that on his idiotic (and very unconstitutional) “Cash for Clunkers” and you cheered like hell. Then you wanted to perform fellatio on him.

I love all of these idiot progressives talking about price tags. When have they _ever_ cared about spending my money? They’ve wined for 30 years now about dropping billions on “infrastructure”. Well - here it is, shit-for-brains. Billions on infrastructure just like you wanted.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> 
> View attachment 173370


Yeah...because _nobody_ would see that. JQ has gone from Wiley Coyote Acme to Disney’s Up!


----------



## regent

The way to make the wall work is to make it into a long hotel with thousands of rooms. Hotels are a Trump specialty and it could have huge signs saying "TRUMPS WALL HOTEL."


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border.
> 
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If walls don’t work - how come _every_ prison in the world has them?
Click to expand...


Prisons never rely on walls, but security to prevent anyone from getting materials that could allow escape.  The walls are more for keeping materials out than keeping people in.  And since Trump's wall is not circling Mexico, it won't keep out dangerous material, and won't even even keep people from going around the wall since it is not circling the US either.
Its just a partial wall.  What good would a partial wall do in a prison?


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> Prisons never rely on walls


History, society, and reality drastically disagrees with you...


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> Prisons never rely on walls, but security to prevent...escape.


We already have the security - it’s called the border patrol. Now we just need the wall.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
Click to expand...


That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out. 
The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> Its just a partial wall.  What good would a partial wall do in a prison?


That’s literally like saying that because the walls of Joliet Prison don’t go around the entire state of Illinois, they don’t work. 

Just like the prisons, we just need the walls in the right places to be effective. It’s a fact. Just ask the rest of the world.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
Click to expand...

That _is_ silly. January 7th was not the “Middle Ages”, buttercup. It was less than 20 days ago.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prisons never rely on walls
> 
> 
> 
> History, society, and reality drastically disagrees with you...
Click to expand...


If you only build part of a wall, that is not going to prevent anyone from going anywhere.  And Trump's wall does not circle Mexico or the US, so is not at all like a prison.  And in a prison they prevent any tools to go under, over, or around.  Trump's wall won't prevent anyone from getting the tools they need to under, over, or around.  

If you built a partial wall as Trump proposes, what is to prevent anyone from using tools to under, over, or around?
In prisons they rely on guards to prevent people from having tools to go under, over, or around.  And that would take many tens of thousands of guards.  The cost would continue forever, not just a one time expense.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.


We won’t be relying on the wall either, buttercup. We’re not eliminating the Border Patrol. The wall will just make them exponentially more effective at their job.

By the way - if you’re going to attempt to argue with my by posting a picture of an armed guard - you _might_ want to find one next time where there was only one guard for miles and miles (as far as the eye can see). Just say’n


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That _is_ silly. January 7th was not the “Middle Ages”, buttercup. It was less than 20 days ago.
Click to expand...


What does Jan. 7 have to do with anything?  Turkey has not completed its 100 mile wall yet, so it does nothing yet.
And Turkey is not trying to keep people our, but weapons of war, like armored vehicles, tanks, trucks, etc.
But since it is not done, we have no idea if Turkey's wall will help at all?


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> If you built a partial wall as Trump proposes, what is to prevent anyone from using tools to under, over, or around?


Cost. Availability. Capability. Expertise. Homeland Security. Border Patrol.

Basically all of the common sense you insist on ignoring in order to push your bat-shit crazy ideological agenda.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> But since it is not done, we have no idea if Turkey's wall will help at all?


Sure we do. It’s called history.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> But since it is not done, we have no idea if Turkey's wall will help at all?


Do you have walls in the dwelling where you reside? Yes or no? If the answer is yes (and we all know it is), then shut the fuck up. You’re being an argumentative hypocrite. You know damn well walls work to keep people out. That’s why you hide behind them and lock your doors.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you built a partial wall as Trump proposes, what is to prevent anyone from using tools to under, over, or around?
> 
> 
> 
> Cost. Availability. Capability. Expertise. Homeland Security. Border Patrol.
> 
> Basically all of the common sense you insist on ignoring in order to push your bag-shit crazy ideological agenda.
Click to expand...


So the things we are already using?


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We won’t be relying on the wall either, buttercup. We’re not eliminating the Border Patrol. The wall will just make them exponentially more effective at their job.
> 
> By the way - if you’re going to attempt to argue with my by posting a picture of an armed guard - you _might_ want to find one next time where there was only one guard for miles and miles (as far as the eye can see). Just say’n
Click to expand...


There are not enough border patrol for 2000 miles of wall.  The wall in Turkey is only 100 miles, so takes far fewer men.
Not sure what your point about the guard pict was?
If it was that you only need a guard every 1/4th mile or so, I suppose I would agree.
But that would still be about 24,000 additional guards, besides the existing border patrol, (8000 times 3 shifts).


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you built a partial wall as Trump proposes, what is to prevent anyone from using tools to under, over, or around?
> 
> 
> 
> Cost. Availability. Capability. Expertise. Homeland Security. Border Patrol.
> 
> Basically all of the common sense you insist on ignoring in order to push your bag-shit crazy ideological agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the things we are already using?
Click to expand...

Someone has a reading comprehension problem - uh BD? She said “what prevents someone from tunneling under the wall”? The answer is that your average Mexican doesn’t have the money for the tools to do that, the expertise to do that, the capability to do that, or the availability of the tools even if they did have all of those other things.

We’re talking about Mexico with the hypothetical wall. So why would you say “the things *we* are already using” when we’re talking about *them* and a situation which doesn’t even exist yet?


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since it is not done, we have no idea if Turkey's wall will help at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have walls in the dwelling where you reside? Yes or no? If the answer is yes (and we all know it is), then shut the fuck up. You’re being an argumentative hypocrite. You know damn well walls work to keep people out. That’s why you hide behind them and lock your doors.
Click to expand...


The walls are to keep out the weather.  I use a 9mm to keep out people.  I keep doors locked to they have to make noise and wake me up.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> There are not enough border patrol for 2000 miles of wall.


Thank you!!! If we don’t have enough border patrol agents to cover 2,000 miles of wall, then we sure as shit don’t have enough border patrol agents to cover 2,000 miles of wide open space!

You just made the best argument yet why we need the wall. Thanks!


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since it is not done, we have no idea if Turkey's wall will help at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have walls in the dwelling where you reside? Yes or no? If the answer is yes (and we all know it is), then shut the fuck up. You’re being an argumentative hypocrite. You know damn well walls work to keep people out. That’s why you hide behind them and lock your doors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The walls are to keep out the weather.  I use a 9mm to keep out people.  I keep doors locked to they have to make noise and wake me up.
Click to expand...

Bull shit. You can “keep weather out” with _tarps_! The walls are to keep people out and you fucking know it.

You’ve been exposed. If you had an ounce of shame, you’d feel really stupid right now.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> I use a 9mm to keep out people.


Well that’s a piss-poor choice. Clearly you are a progressive. Choosing your home defense firearms based on rap videos on MTV is not very wise. Believe me - your “gat” isn’t going to do much for you. I’ve got $100 that says you hold it sideways too


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is no engineer
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why he isn’t designing the wall. You do realize when President Trump says he’s going to build a wall he does not mean that he, himself, will literally build the wall - don’t you?
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully it doesn’t take an “expert on security” to understand that walls keep people out. That’s why your home has them.
> 
> Also - it doesn’t matter one bit what Donald Trump wants. The wall is what the American people want. That’s why they elected him.
Click to expand...


Trump initiated the concept of a wall as grand as that Great Wall of China. He repeatedly made references to it. That kind of wall would cost three or 4 times as much just to build a 1000 mile stretch. He has no idea of costs for things built by the government.. So yes...likely some one knowledgeable about engineering and construction costs pulled him aside and schooled him. And I'm still not sure if he knows the difference between a wall and a big fence.

Trump is a dumb fool who just wants to do something spectacular . He came up with the concept of a wall that could become the largest manmade structure on earth...and his name will be associated with it. I don't want my tax dollars paying for some damn tribute to dumb Donald's ego.

The American people don't want to waste money on a wall. Last time i checked the PEW poll indicated over 60% of Americans were against it.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
Click to expand...

So why stop with a wall on the southern border? Why not encircle the entire continental USA with a wall? That could stop illegals from sneaking around the wall via two oceans and the Canadian border.


> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.






			
				P@triot said:
			
		

> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world



Why should i feel stupid about a quote I never posted? I think the stupidity here belongs to you in this case.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> The way to make the wall work is to make it into a long hotel with thousands of rooms. Hotels are a Trump specialty and it could have huge signs saying "TRUMPS WALL HOTEL."


You would sound a lot smarter if you quit posting.


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
Click to expand...


The idiot claims walls don't work, and then posts a pic of a wall.

If the wall wasn't necessary, then why did they build it?  Ever seen a line of gaurd towers without a wall?  Me neither.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why stop with a wall on the southern border? Why not encircle the entire continental USA with a wall? That could stop illegals from sneaking around the wall via two oceans and the Canadian border.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should i feel stupid about a quote I never posted? I think the stupidity here belongs to you in this case.
Click to expand...


It isn't necessary, moron.

You can always count on snowflakes to devolve into pure idiocy.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is no engineer
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why he isn’t designing the wall. You do realize when President Trump says he’s going to build a wall he does not mean that he, himself, will literally build the wall - don’t you?
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully it doesn’t take an “expert on security” to understand that walls keep people out. That’s why your home has them.
> 
> Also - it doesn’t matter one bit what Donald Trump wants. The wall is what the American people want. That’s why they elected him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump initiated the concept of a wall as grand as that Great Wall of China. He repeatedly made references to it. That kind of wall would cost three or 4 times as much just to build a 1000 mile stretch. He has no idea of costs for things built by the government.. So yes...likely some one knowledgeable about engineering and construction costs pulled him aside and schooled him. And I'm still not sure if he knows the difference between a wall and a big fence.
> 
> Trump is a dumb fool who just wants to do something spectacular . He came up with the concept of a wall that could become the largest manmade structure on earth...and his name will be associated with it. I don't want my tax dollars paying for some damn tribute to dumb Donald's ego.
> 
> The American people don't want to waste money on a wall. Last time i checked the PEW poll indicated over 60% of Americans were against it.
Click to expand...


Once again, you're spouting pure idiocy.  Trump never said he was going to build something that looked like the great wall of China.  If you believe he did, then post the evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since it is not done, we have no idea if Turkey's wall will help at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have walls in the dwelling where you reside? Yes or no? If the answer is yes (and we all know it is), then shut the fuck up. You’re being an argumentative hypocrite. You know damn well walls work to keep people out. That’s why you hide behind them and lock your doors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The walls are to keep out the weather.  I use a 9mm to keep out people.  I keep doors locked to they have to make noise and wake me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull shit. You can “keep weather out” with _tarps_! The walls are to keep people out and you fucking know it.
> 
> You’ve been exposed. If you had an ounce of shame, you’d feel really stupid right now.
Click to expand...


He's partially correct.  In cold climates you need walls to keep out the cold.  However, in tropical climates a lot of people live in houses that don't have walls.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are not enough border patrol for 2000 miles of wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!!! If we don’t have enough border patrol agents to cover 2,000 miles of wall, then we sure as shit don’t have enough border patrol agents to cover 2,000 miles of wide open space!
> 
> You just made the best argument yet why we need the wall. Thanks!
Click to expand...

*Exactly!*

Walls reduce the manpower needed to gaurd the border, not increase it.  These bozos say stupid stuff every time they post on this subject.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the terrain and time of day.
> Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall.
> He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.
> 
> The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.
Click to expand...

I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the terrain and time of day.
> Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall.
> He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.
> 
> The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....
Click to expand...


They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot claims walls don't work, and then posts a pic of a wall.
> 
> If the wall wasn't necessary, then why did they build it?  Ever seen a line of gaurd towers without a wall?  Me neither.
Click to expand...

Encircle the entire country then...that makes more sense.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot claims walls don't work, and then posts a pic of a wall.
> 
> If the wall wasn't necessary, then why did they build it?  Ever seen a line of gaurd towers without a wall?  Me neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Encircle the entire country then...that makes more sense.
Click to expand...


It makes more sense to an imbecile like you, perhaps.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the terrain and time of day.
> Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall.
> He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.
> 
> The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.
Click to expand...

We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because nobody could possibly see a balloon from a mile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the terrain and time of day.
> Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall.
> He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.
> 
> The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.

We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> 
> 
> 
> Consider the latest: On Jan. 7, Turkey announced it had completed half of a more than 100-mile wall along its border with Iran in terrain far more difficult than the Rio Grande Valley.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot claims walls don't work, and then posts a pic of a wall.
> 
> If the wall wasn't necessary, then why did they build it?  Ever seen a line of gaurd towers without a wall?  Me neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Encircle the entire country then...that makes more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to an imbecile like you, perhaps.
Click to expand...


It makes more sense to me to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...if walls don’t work and are so “easy to traverse”...then why does every nation in the world use them? Why does every prison in the world use them? Why did the Catholic Church put a massive wall around the Vatican?
> Feeling stupid yet? You _should_...
> 
> Trump's border wall is standard practice in other parts of the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idiot claims walls don't work, and then posts a pic of a wall.
> 
> If the wall wasn't necessary, then why did they build it?  Ever seen a line of guard towers without a wall?  Me neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Encircle the entire country then...that makes more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to an imbecile like you, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to me to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
Click to expand...

That's because you're a dumbass who only cares about importing more Democrats even if it means turning this country into a shit hole.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the terrain and time of day.
> Laugh if you will but Trump's folly is the real joke. But his is an expensive joke. Trump is no engineer or expert on security so what makes his wall demand so crucial....as if he is an expert on what it takes to secure the unsecurable border. He is nerely a layman with an amateurish vision that he arrived at on his own. He didn't think it through. Trump doesn't care about the inefficacy of the wall.
> He just wants his name on it.That is one legacy that will not be easily dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.
> 
> The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.
> 
> We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.
Click to expand...

Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is silly because the massive fortifications of the Middle Ages never relied on wall to keep people out.
> The walls were for defenders to shoot from, and it was the defenders that kept people out.
> A 100 mile  wall is nothing like a 2000 mile wall, and you can see turkey is not relying on a wall, but on guard towers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idiot claims walls don't work, and then posts a pic of a wall.
> 
> If the wall wasn't necessary, then why did they build it?  Ever seen a line of guard towers without a wall?  Me neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Encircle the entire country then...that makes more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to an imbecile like you, perhaps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to me to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you're a dumbass who only cares about importing more Democrats even if it means turning this country into a shit hole.
Click to expand...

Illegals can't vote stupid...who told you they do?


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every security expert in the world will tell you that walls work.  Only open-borders douchebasgs like you pretend they don't.  Engineers will tell you that constructing an effective wall will not be a problem.  We've already seen 8 examples, and they will all do the job nicely  The idea of the wall has been around for decades.  Congress put of the money for 700 miles of wall during the Bush administration.  Your claim that it's all Trump's idea is obvious horseshit.
> 
> The fact that the wall will be effective is what terrifies open-borders traitors like you.  You and your ilk have been waging a jihad against the wall ever since Trump proposed it.  The fact that you're so hostile to it is just one ore indication that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You're right about one thing:  it won't be easily dismantled.  It will be around for 100 years stopping illegals through Republican administration and Democrat administration.  That's what really has you and your ilk terrified.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.
> 
> We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.
Click to expand...

I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.

But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.


----------



## keepitreal

JQPublic1 said:


> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bnag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> View attachment 173370
Click to expand...

I would ask you, if you reread what you wrote,
before you hit the 'post reply' button but,
that would be an utterly, stupid question on my part,
considering the obvious....critical thinking

Your, Wile E Coyote solutions, were not, in any way, 
formed or based on, analytical, logical or rational thinking!

Any more than, your subsequent reply,
to which I am now responding to.

With that said....


JQPublic1 said:


> Although my typo has left me vulnerable to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist.
> I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.


Whether or not it was a typo(which I doubt), is irrelevant!

Your inability to realize that, is made evident by:

...._hand gliders do exist. 
I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
_
Your attempt to ignore your stupidity and absurdity, 
by rationalizing, the criticism stems from a typo,
fails miserably, when followed by idiocy and more stupidity!


JQPublic1 said:


> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of people across a wall at night in an isolated location.
> I could it easily construct such a devise *amd* make it work.


....I've proved my point, case closed

_I could it easily construct such a devise *amd* make it work._
*^typo*


----------



## keepitreal

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> 
> View attachment 173370
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be joking.  An agent with a bee bee gun can make short work of those balloons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are isolated spots along that 2000 mi. border where border patrols are scarce.
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
Click to expand...




JQPublic1 said:


> There are isolated spots along that 2000 mi. border where border patrols are scarce.
> But my point is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more
> precipitously


O M G

Please...enough already!

Trying to convince us is not necessary...
I assure you, your idiocy is evident!

Seriously moron....do you have any idea
how heavy commercial helium tanks are?

How time consuming it would be to
fill these 'freedom balloons?...

Of course, you couldn't just tie 
heavy duty cord or rope at the closure knot....
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE...

you would need a netting fixture that the balloon would sit in,
and those cords would have to be strapped to the body

How will they control their direction?

How will they get down...start popping one by one?

Try watching Border Wars!...time and stealth is of the essence!

YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND THE WEAKEST LINK!
GOOD BYE!


----------



## WheelieAddict

Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.


----------



## WheelieAddict

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.
> 
> We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...

Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.


Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They also didn't want Obamacare, but they got that rammed down their throats.  They don't want the wall only because they're being browbeat by morons like you.  Once the wall is built they will learn to love it.
> 
> 
> 
> We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.
> 
> We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
Click to expand...


Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.


----------



## WheelieAddict

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
Click to expand...

Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.


----------



## WheelieAddict

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will see, Jackass. And for the record...a significant number of Republicans don't support building a wall either. For one thing we know Trump is a liar so anything he says about costs or construcion can be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.
> 
> We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.
Click to expand...

Oh so we should float the money and Mexico will definitely pay back. You believe that you are the moron.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
Click to expand...

Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we know.  Establishment douchebags like Lindsey Grahamnesty, and Jeb Bush don't support it.  Their kind are being purged from the party.  That's why Jeff Flake is retiring.
> 
> We know you're a liar, and so are all the douchebags in here who oppose the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so we should float the money and Mexico will definitely pay back. You believe that you are the moron.
Click to expand...

All I care about is if the wall gets built.  Getting Mexico to pay for it is a secondary issue.


----------



## WheelieAddict

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.
Click to expand...

Get back to me when Mexico plays for the wall in year 2900


----------



## WheelieAddict

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so we should float the money and Mexico will definitely pay back. You believe that you are the moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I care about is if the wall gets built.  Getting Mexico to pay for it is a secondary issue.
Click to expand...

Well we were promised Mexico would pay. Your throwing money into the national debt without consequence is typical big spending conservative hypocrisy.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so we should float the money and Mexico will definitely pay back. You believe that you are the moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I care about is if the wall gets built.  Getting Mexico to pay for it is a secondary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we were promised Mexico would pay. Your throwing money into the national debt without consequence is typical big spending conservative hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Well, Trump just seems to be another Ronald Reagan, grant  Amnesty to millions.

The Republicans love Reagan though, not very bright people, a party of British yokels who liter the Southern states, and the Mid-West.


----------



## dblack

If you gotta hide behind a wall, you've already lost.


----------



## WheelieAddict

What do "conservatives" do to lessen the deficit? They decrease taxes without decreasing spending and add to it. Lie about others paying for their big money projects. Frauds.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when Mexico plays for the wall in year 2900
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less, moron.  The wall will get fully funded in 2018.  End of story.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> If you gotta hide behind a wall, you've already lost.


What have we lost?


----------



## WheelieAddict

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when Mexico plays for the wall in year 2900
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less, moron.  The wall will get fully funded in 2018.  End of story.
Click to expand...

Big spending "conservatives" will make sure of it.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that number is accurate.  A lot of people are not going to admit they support the wall because of the open-borders douchebags have villified those who support it.
> 
> But it really doesn't matter.  You're getting the wall whether you like it or not.  Elections have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so we should float the money and Mexico will definitely pay back. You believe that you are the moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I care about is if the wall gets built.  Getting Mexico to pay for it is a secondary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we were promised Mexico would pay. Your throwing money into the national debt without consequence is typical big spending conservative hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

$25 billion is pocket change compared to the ACA boondoggle Dims passed under Obama.  It will save many times that amount.  Nothing Democrats pass has ever saved the taxpayers a dime.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when Mexico plays for the wall in year 2900
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less, moron.  The wall will get fully funded in 2018.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big spending "conservatives" will make sure of it.
Click to expand...

Whenever a Dim whines about spending, you know he's full of shit.


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.


----------



## bripat9643

WheelieAddict said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when Mexico plays for the wall in year 2900
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less, moron.  The wall will get fully funded in 2018.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big spending "conservatives" will make sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever a Dim whines about spending, you know he's full of shit.
Click to expand...



But spending will come along with amnesty.


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
Click to expand...


Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
Click to expand...


What do you propose instead?  Tell us your idea for a bill that can actually get through Congress.


----------



## dblack




----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
Click to expand...



No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.


----------



## WheelieAddict

dblack said:


>


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

bripat9643 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think we should've dictated policy long ago, starting with Republicans repealing the traitorous  Hart-Celler immigration act, and the traitorous Roe vs Wade decision, by all means necessary, and cracking down on the Liberal media, and Liberal Hollywood back in the 1960's - 1970's.

Instead Republicans did nothing, and things got worse, and worse, and worse.

The Fascists got it correct nearly 100 years ago, the Republicans still get it wrong, Capitalism is part of the problem, not part of the solution, Capitalism sells out to Balkanized multiculturalism, as well as general Liberalism like porn, degenerate films, and abortion for Hospital Capitalism.

Unfortunately the demise of our country is "Profitable"

Republicans are clearly clueless, if they think Capitalism will solve these issues.


----------



## Crixus

Oh, and for my stance in illegals and another amnesty, to look at my posts and see if I support any amnesty. You were duped.


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you propose instead?  Tell us your idea for a bill that can actually get through Congress.
Click to expand...




That’s not what you said during the campaign. That’s not what Trump said. That’s not what any republican who ran in 2016 and before said. Yet here you are giving them cover for granting amnesty. Sad!..... Bigly.


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you propose instead?  Tell us your idea for a bill that can actually get through Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not what you said during the campaign. That’s not what Trump said. That’s not what any republican who ran in 2016 and before said. Yet here you are giving them cover for granting amnesty. Sad!..... Bigly.
Click to expand...


Tell us what bill you propose to get through Congress.  What anyone said during the campaign is irrelevant.  If you can't describe what you propose to put to a vote, then shut the fuck up.


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.
Click to expand...


What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


>


the Great Walls of America could generate revenue, from Inception.


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...




See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
Click to expand...

You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.


----------



## JQPublic1

keepitreal said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyone who claims walls don't work* is a traitorous open-borders douche bnag.  There is simply no valid reason for opposing the wall.  Anyone who does it wants to open the flood gates to illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to complete that sentence for you. Anyone who claims walls don’t work *is an immature, pathological liar*. Even U.S. Special Forces were unable to breach the prototypes.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. military special forces and the Customs and Border Protection agency recently finished testing border wall prototypes — and the results couldn’t be more conclusive.
> 
> Commandos and agents attempted “to breach and scale the eight models in San Diego, using jackhammers, saws, torches and other tools and climbing devices” but were unable to breach the walls each time, a U.S. official anonymously told the AP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the most elite military forces in the world can’t breach them, there won’t be a _single_ illegal alien that will be able to pull it off. This should have been done decades ago.
> 
> US special forces spent three weeks testing border wall prototypes — the results couldn’t be better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> View attachment 173370
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would ask you, if you reread what you wrote,
> before you hit the 'post reply' button but,
> that would be an utterly, stupid question on my part,
> considering the obvious....critical thinking
> 
> Your, Wile E Coyote solutions, were not, in any way,
> formed or based on, analytical, logical or rational thinking!
> 
> Any more than, your subsequent reply,
> to which I am now responding to.
> 
> With that said....
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist.
> I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whether or not it was a typo(which I doubt), is irrelevant!
> 
> Your inability to realize that, is made evident by:
> 
> ...._hand gliders do exist.
> I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> _
> Your attempt to ignore your stupidity and absurdity,
> by rationalizing, the criticism stems from a typo,
> fails miserably, when followed by idiocy and more stupidity!
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of people across a wall at night in an isolated location.
> I could it easily construct such a devise *amd* make it work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....I've proved my point, case closed
> 
> _I could it easily construct such a devise *amd* make it work._
> *^typo*
Click to expand...

You haven't proven a thing except I do make typos when using a cell phone to respond here. And that's no sin.  And my hypothesis in regards to using  ballons to get multiple parties over a 30ft wall at some secluded area along a 2000 mile border is workable.
Now the issue of detection by guards or electronic intrusion devices is another matter.
Coyotes  have contacts on the US side of the border  including corrupt border patrol agents who would know how to appropriate and use any  security vulnerabilities to their advantage.


----------



## JQPublic1

keepitreal said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keepitreal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...a man with a balloon big enough to lifi his weight could be over that wall in seconds ....as could a man using a hand glider. Did the Special Forces try either of those ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMMFAO
> 
> Wow...I've been MIA here longer then it seems....
> I actually forgot how rampant stupidity is here!
> 
> No matter how you slice it....
> 
> whether i suggest putting your hair brain, cockamamie,
> Wile E Coyote, Acme plans to the test, physically,
> or, mentally, using critical thinking skills instead....
> 
> ...either way, you'll hurt yourself!
> 
> Hmmm, let me guess, the Earth is flat...
> perfect for your *hand* glider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although my typo has left me vulnerable
> to hacks like you, hand gliders do exist. I don't know of any large enough to carry a person but they do exist.
> 
> How to Make Hand Gliders
> 
> And helium filled ballons have been used to lift a man in a lawn chair a few miles  into the sky...fewer ballons could lift one to the top of a. 30 ft wall. Coyotes who specialize and profit from getting people across the border
> could devise an apparatus that could be used repeatedly to float dozens of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people across a
> wall at night in an isolated location. I could  it easily construct such a devise amd make it work.
> 
> View attachment 173370
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've got to be joking.  An agent with a bee bee gun can make short work of those balloons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are isolated spots along that 2000 mi. border where border patrols are scarce.
> But my point  is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more precipitously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are isolated spots along that 2000 mi. border where border patrols are scarce.
> But my point is balloons could be used to traverse a border wall repeatedely with low probability of immediate detection in a secluded area. Create a diversion a mile away and detection drops even more
> precipitously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O M G
> 
> Please...enough already!
> 
> Trying to convince us is not necessary...
> I assure you, your idiocy is evident!
> 
> Seriously moron....do you have any idea
> how heavy commercial helium tanks are?
> 
> How time consuming it would be to
> fill these 'freedom balloons?...
> 
> Of course, you couldn't just tie
> heavy duty cord or rope at the closure knot....
> IT'S NOT POSSIBLE...
> 
> you would need a netting fixture that the balloon would sit in,
> and those cords would have to be strapped to the body
> 
> How will they control their direction?
> 
> How will they get down...start popping one by one?
> 
> Try watching Border Wars!...time and stealth is of the essence!
> 
> YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND THE WEAKEST LINK!
> GOOD BYE!
Click to expand...

I've already shown the details in a previous post. Anyone interested has already seen it and is now chuckling at your ignorant ranting.
I even included a picture.


----------



## JQPublic1

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico needs to pay first as Trump promised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump didn't say anything about Mexico paying first, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh so we should float the money and Mexico will definitely pay back. You believe that you are the moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All I care about is if the wall gets built.  Getting Mexico to pay for it is a secondary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we were promised Mexico would pay. Your throwing money into the national debt without consequence is typical big spending conservative hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Trump just seems to be another Ronald Reagan, grant  Amnesty to millions.
> 
> The Republicans love Reagan though, not very bright people, a party of British yokels who liter the Southern states, and the Mid-West.
Click to expand...

Wtf? I can't believe you said something I actually agree with.


----------



## basquebromance

"deport all the dreamers, then the illegals, then build the wall, then merit based immigration. Then, America becomes great again" - President Trump


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
Click to expand...

I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor. Or those healthy items could become very scarce.Trump has the dough to get his but will you and your family be able to get theirs?


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has a minimum of three more years to make good on his promise.  You don't get to set the deadline, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get back to me when Mexico plays for the wall in year 2900
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less, moron.  The wall will get fully funded in 2018.  End of story.
Click to expand...

When it doesn't get fully funded will you ask us for forgiveness and admit you were a disillusioned creep?


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
Click to expand...


Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you built a partial wall as Trump proposes, what is to prevent anyone from using tools to under, over, or around?
> 
> 
> 
> Cost. Availability. Capability. Expertise. Homeland Security. Border Patrol.
> 
> Basically all of the common sense you insist on ignoring in order to push your bag-shit crazy ideological agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the things we are already using?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone has a reading comprehension problem - uh BD? She said “what prevents someone from tunneling under the wall”? The answer is that your average Mexican doesn’t have the money for the tools to do that, the expertise to do that, the capability to do that, or the availability of the tools even if they did have all of those other things.
> 
> We’re talking about Mexico with the hypothetical wall. So why would you say “the things *we* are already using” when we’re talking about *them* and a situation which doesn’t even exist yet?
Click to expand...


Yet there are already  lots o tunnels being found, and I'm sure a lot that haven't been found. Trump-0 claimed the wall would stop drugs as well as people. The wall can be bypassed with techniques already being used..


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
Click to expand...


Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
Click to expand...


When did Obama or the Dims ever care about spending?


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.
Click to expand...

You're the imbecile who seems to believe you're a dictator who gives orders to the President of the United States.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor. Or those healthy items could become very scarce.Trump has the dough to get his but will you and your family be able to get theirs?
Click to expand...

In other words, you're an open-borders douchebag.  You're making excuses for illegals.  Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Obama or the Dims ever care about spending?
Click to expand...

Easy...Both, the Democrats and Republicans only care about spending when the other party is doing it. But the Republicans always want to accompany spending with tax cuts.
That tradition usually fucks up the economy so bad the public has no choice but to vote the democrats back into oower.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you gotta hide behind a wall, you've already lost.
> 
> 
> 
> What have we lost?
Click to expand...


Dignity, freedom, self-respect?


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the imbecile who seems to believe you're a dictator who gives orders to the President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Punk...as an American citizen who is also a member of rhe majority of folks who did not vote for Trump,, you bet cho' sweet ass we can collectively tell our public servant, dumb Donald what to do.if he wants to be obstinate we just pressure our congressional servants to withhold funding.


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the cost of the wall the amnesty for 1.8 million illegals and their families. Also ad the food stamps and other perks like free health care, in state tuition, EEO, shit as well as the cost of jailing said wet backs, I mean really, Trump ain’t any better then Boosh or Token Negro was. I mean, he is pushing amnesty despite all his promises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...



And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor. Or those healthy items could become very scarce.Trump has the dough to get his but will you and your family be able to get theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you're an open-borders douchebag.  You're making excuses for illegals.  Who do you think you're fooling?
Click to expand...

Hey, crybaby...I'm just following the lead of that famous Republican you RW surrogates love so much:


GO ON TELL ME YOU THINK REAGAN IS AN OPEN BORDERS DOUCHE BAG...I DARE YA!


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you gotta hide behind a wall, you've already lost.
> 
> 
> 
> What have we lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dignity, freedom, self-respect?
Click to expand...


None of the above, moron.   How have I lost freedom?  I certainly haven't lost any dignity or self-respect.


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you one of the assholes who supports amnesty?  If you think Trump can just dictate to the Dims whatever he wants, you're a fucking fool.  The DACA amnesty is the price we have to pay to get the other stuff we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
Click to expand...


Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the imbecile who seems to believe you're a dictator who gives orders to the President of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Punk...as an American citizen who is also a member of rhe majority of folks who did not vote for Trump,, you bet cho' sweet ass we can collectively tell our public servant, dumb Donald what to do.if he wants to be obstinate we just pressure our congressional servants to withhold funding.
Click to expand...


The decision was made on Nov 8, 2016.  You lost.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Obama or the Dims ever care about spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...Both, the Democrats and Republicans only care about spending when the other party is doing it. But the Republicans always want to accompany spending with tax cuts.
> That tradition usually fucks up the economy so bad the public has no choice but to vote the democrats back into oower.
Click to expand...


So you are whining about a measely $25 billion over 6-8 years, and we complained about $1.5 trillion.

See the problem here?


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That was you. You were one of The loudest Trumpkins here. Now instead of gleefully stating how the Donald will send the wet backs home and build a way, you are touting Amnesty and a fence in New Mexico. That’s a flip flop...... Bigly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...



I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?


----------



## bripat9643

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
Click to expand...


So you want him to submit a bill that has no chance of getting approved?  Is that what you're saying, dumbass?


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor. Or those healthy items could become very scarce.Trump has the dough to get his but will you and your family be able to get theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you're an open-borders douchebag.  You're making excuses for illegals.  Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, crybaby...I'm just following the lead of that famous Republican you RW surrogates love so much:
> 
> GO ON TELL ME YOU THINK REAGAN IS AN OPEN BORDERS DOUCHE BAG...I DARE YA!
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that you support open borders?


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the imbecile who seems to believe you're a dictator who gives orders to the President of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Punk...as an American citizen who is also a member of rhe majority of folks who did not vote for Trump,, you bet cho' sweet ass we can collectively tell our public servant, dumb Donald what to do.if he wants to be obstinate we just pressure our congressional servants to withhold funding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decision was made on Nov 8, 2016.  You lost.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't lose. Trump must understand that he is the president for ALL of us,  not just the 30% making up his base. There are enough Democrats and Republicans who are against the wall to stop his Folly.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Obama or the Dims ever care about spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...Both, the Democrats and Republicans only care about spending when the other party is doing it. But the Republicans always want to accompany spending with tax cuts.
> That tradition usually fucks up the economy so bad the public has no choice but to vote the democrats back into oower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are whining about a measely $25 billion over 6-8 years, and we complained about $1.5 trillion.
> 
> See the problem here?
Click to expand...

Oh...did Trump say it would cost $25 
billion? And you believe him? Hell by the time Trump leaves office the value of the dollar will be lower, inflation will be rampant, and we could be engaged in a nuclear war. The cost of building Trump's Folly would skyrocket.
And those tax breaks would be draini g the superfunds of Social Security, Medicare and other social benefits would dry up.

Then the fickle public will once again call upon the Democrats to fix it. But this time it may be too late.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who doesn't hold trump to his bullshit claims.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor. Or those healthy items could become very scarce.Trump has the dough to get his but will you and your family be able to get theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you're an open-borders douchebag.  You're making excuses for illegals.  Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, crybaby...I'm just following the lead of that famous Republican you RW surrogates love so much:
> 
> GO ON TELL ME YOU THINK REAGAN IS AN OPEN BORDERS DOUCHE BAG...I DARE YA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're admitting that you support open borders?
Click to expand...

No but Reagan did...what do you have to say about that you friggin fraud.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor. Or those healthy items could become very scarce.Trump has the dough to get his but will you and your family be able to get theirs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you're an open-borders douchebag.  You're making excuses for illegals.  Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, crybaby...I'm just following the lead of that famous Republican you RW surrogates love so much:
> 
> GO ON TELL ME YOU THINK REAGAN IS AN OPEN BORDERS DOUCHE BAG...I DARE YA!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're admitting that you support open borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No but Reagan did...what do you have to say about that you friggin fraud.
Click to expand...

We're talking about what you support.  Your deflection to Reagan is what snowflakes call "whataboutism."


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less about who pays for the wall, moron.  Just cutting down on illegal immigration will cost Mexico far more than the price of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Obama or the Dims ever care about spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy...Both, the Democrats and Republicans only care about spending when the other party is doing it. But the Republicans always want to accompany spending with tax cuts.
> That tradition usually fucks up the economy so bad the public has no choice but to vote the democrats back into oower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are whining about a measely $25 billion over 6-8 years, and we complained about $1.5 trillion.
> 
> See the problem here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...did Trump say it would cost $25
> billion? And you believe him? Hell by the time Trump leaves office the value of the dollar will be lower, inflation will be rampant, and we could be engaged in a nuclear war. The cost of building Trump's Folly would skyrocket.
> And those tax breaks would be draini g the superfunds of Social Security, Medicare and other social benefits would dry up.
> 
> Then the fickle public will once again call upon the Democrats to fix it. But this time it may be too late.
Click to expand...


So Congress should never approve any Dim socialist boondoggle for those very same reasons?


----------



## McFury

The Mexican convicts can build the wall.
As long as we promise them that we will let them go free across the border to Mexico after they build it.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


. The wall is a bad idea, and it will be a waste of money... Sorry..... 

If we would just enforce the border, and jail along with fine the American businesses caught working or hiring illegals, the situation would clear up immediately.  Yes, build better deterrents or use better technology in areas of the border in need of the correct applications to use, but a blank check or rubber stamp for a wall IMO is just ridiculous knowing what we know now. ENFORCEMENT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED !!!


----------



## beagle9

The Original Tree said:


> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.


. The wall won't stop it all. We have better ways of fighting the bullcrap, and it needs to be unleashed totally.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> I stand with the majority of Americans who don't want their tax dollars wasted on Trump's Folly. 61% is a lot of traitors....


You stand as a complete and total partisan hack. You cheered like hell when Barack Insane Obama was illegally spending trillions just to throw money around. Trying to pretend like you actually care about a paltry $21 billion is pitiful.

You don’t have the backbone or the integrity to admit you desperately _want_ illegal aliens coming here because you hope to get them amnesty and thus vastly increase your voter base. You realize you can’t win clean elections comprised of legal American citizens.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Encircle the entire country then...that makes more sense.


It might come to that. But rational, reasonable people take limited resources and apply them where they are most needed. If we were being invaded by Canadians, then I would be advocating for a wall to the north. But right now, the problem is Mexico.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.


That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Over 60% of Americans in a PEW poll oppose the wall. You RW minorities are not the majority.


Yeah...those same “polls” said Hitlery Clinton would win in a “landslide”. There is a reason Donald Trump sits in the White House this evening and Republicans control all levels of government coast-to-coast. This is _exactly_ what the American people want.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Illegals can't vote stupid...who told you they do?


Dead people can’t vote either...but Dumbocrats make sure they do anyway.


----------



## Humorme

Crixus said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was me?  Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
Click to expand...


So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):

*  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship

*  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave

*  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit

* The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money

*  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.

Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry. 

*  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall

*  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?

With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> . The wall is a bad idea, and it will be a waste of money... Sorry.....
> 
> If we would just enforce the border, and jail along with fine the American businesses caught working or hiring illegals, the situation would clear up immediately.  Yes, build better deterrents or use better technology in areas of the border in need of the correct applications to use, but a blank check or rubber stamp for a wall IMO is just ridiculous knowing what we know now. ENFORCEMENT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED !!!
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  It's the security measure that gives the most bang for the buck.  That's why 60 countries have built similar walls.  Everything dumbasses like you say about the wall is just plain not true, and that's easy to prove.  I have proved it hundreds of times already in this forum.

There are no better "deterents" than the wall.  If going after employers worked, then why do we have this flood of illegals in the country?  It's already illegal for employers to hire illegals.  As always, you propose solutions that have been proven not to work because they depend on scumbag politicians to do their jobs.  The wall doesn't depend on politicians to work.  That's the beauty of it and the reason lying open-borders weasels like you are so hostile to it.

How is paying for the wall anymore of a "blank check" than paying for Obama's healthcare boondoggle?  Since when is paying for things giving them a "blank check?"  That's just one of those labels leftwingers like to throw around innappropiately, like "extreme."  They use it because it polls well with the leftwing imbeciles, not because it means anything.

You can repeat your horseshit 1000 times, and I'll knock it down 1000 times.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.
Click to expand...

This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.
Click to expand...

Wow...someone has done a 180° pivot. You were adamant that Barack Insane Obama had unlimited power when he was in office. Not once did you ever declare that he worked for the American people.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Trump just seems to be another Ronald Reagan, grant  Amnesty to millions.
> 
> The Republicans love Reagan though, not very bright people, a party of British yokels who liter the Southern states, and the Mid-West.
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf? I can't believe you said something I actually agree with.
Click to expand...

Not suprsing...idiot totalitarian fascists normally do see eye-to-eye for a while (until the power intoxicates everyone and they turn on each other like rapid dogs).


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean? What did Trump propose be put up before congress? What was his bill? Don’t think there was. All he said was deport the illegals and build a wall kill obama care. He went left on all three. But back to Trumpnesty, trump said no amnesty, you all said he wouldn’t, y’all shouted people down that pointed out that Trump has always been an advocate for amnesty, yet here you, specifically, YOU are carrying water for Trumps amnesty plan. At leas be honest. Or just say fuck some more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
Click to expand...


You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.

Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?

There is a village somehere missing its idiot.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.


So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
Click to expand...

You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.


*President Trump* and the Republican Congress have already drastically reduced spending (long before the tax cuts were passed). And *President Trump* has a much smaller deficit in his first year than Barack Insane Obama had in his first year.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.
Click to expand...

Well...considering most of them are parasites who mooch off of society...it’s not surprising that they are all about getting stuff cheap at the expense of others.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.


Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> . The wall is a bad idea, and it will be a waste of money... Sorry.....
> 
> If we would just enforce the border, and jail along with fine the American businesses caught working or hiring illegals, the situation would clear up immediately.  Yes, build better deterrents or use better technology in areas of the border in need of the correct applications to use, but a blank check or rubber stamp for a wall IMO is just ridiculous knowing what we know now. ENFORCEMENT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  It's the security measure that gives the most bang for the buck.  That's why 60 countries have built similar walls.  Everything dumbasses like you say about the wall is just plain not true, and that's easy to prove.  I have proved it hundreds of times already in this forum.
> 
> There are no better "deterents" than the wall.  If going after employers worked, then why do we have this flood of illegals in the country?  It's already illegal for employers to hire illegals.  As always, you propose solutions that have been proven not to work because they depend on scumbag politicians to do their jobs.  The wall doesn't depend on politicians to work.  That's the beauty of it and the reason lying open-borders weasels like you are so hostile to it.
> 
> How is paying for the wall anymore of a "blank check" than paying for Obama's healthcare boondoggle?  Since when is paying for things giving them a "blank check?"  That's just one of those labels leftwingers like to throw around innappropiately, like "extreme."  They use it because it polls well with the leftwing imbeciles, not because it means anything.
> 
> You can repeat your horseshit 1000 times, and I'll knock it down 1000 times.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap, and you are crazy if you think that employers have been abiding by the federal laws or if you think that they haven't figured out how to get around the laws in order to employee the illegals vis a vis through contractors or actually setting them up as independent contractors who then come to work on their jobs/job sites without being directly tied to them. 

I ask you, how does million's of illegals sustain themselves here without working ?  Easy -- They don't !!!!

Just like Trump said, the wall basically will be established in some areas of need, along with upgrading or repairing existing barriers in need, applying technology where needed, and placing man power where needed. 

He is to ensure a full enforcement of the border, but just as he ran around carrying on about how much bowing (the aircraft manufacturer), who wanted to charge the government for new aircraft a huge amount of money, and then him re-negotiating those bids, then shouldn't it be that the American taxpayers can also question the price of this so called wall, it's implementation of, it's effectiveness, and it's design ???  

Shouldn't the American taxpayers expect total transparency on the cost, effectiveness, plan, allocation of resources, enforcement, type of enforcement, and on the dealings with those employers inside this country who are a huge draw in the whole problem, and who have been breaking the law ??  

Shouldn't the American taxpayers get a better plan, along with enforcement, and a long term cost analysis, and the effectiveness of it all laid out to them in a very thorough way by the administration, instead of what we got with the ACA in which you spoke about in your post ? 

To speak in this way is somehow liberal or etc in your book ??

Where did you get that I'm for open borders as you claimed ??  Are you lying out of desperation now ?? Why do you fear American's wanting transparency out of the Trump administration ??


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress.  If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
Click to expand...

. You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
Click to expand...

The reason to build the wall is precisely because the Democrats may get back into power.  I have no idea what I said that makes you conclude that I think that can't happen.  It's you that behaves as if we have all the time in the world, and that we can dicker endlessly about the price of the wall and where to build it.

Just get the fucking money up front.  Then we can worry about the details.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.
Click to expand...

Did you ask Reagan what was wrong with him when he essentially said the same thing?
And Reagan was no leftwinger nor am I.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> . The wall is a bad idea, and it will be a waste of money... Sorry.....
> 
> If we would just enforce the border, and jail along with fine the American businesses caught working or hiring illegals, the situation would clear up immediately.  Yes, build better deterrents or use better technology in areas of the border in need of the correct applications to use, but a blank check or rubber stamp for a wall IMO is just ridiculous knowing what we know now. ENFORCEMENT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  It's the security measure that gives the most bang for the buck.  That's why 60 countries have built similar walls.  Everything dumbasses like you say about the wall is just plain not true, and that's easy to prove.  I have proved it hundreds of times already in this forum.
> 
> There are no better "deterents" than the wall.  If going after employers worked, then why do we have this flood of illegals in the country?  It's already illegal for employers to hire illegals.  As always, you propose solutions that have been proven not to work because they depend on scumbag politicians to do their jobs.  The wall doesn't depend on politicians to work.  That's the beauty of it and the reason lying open-borders weasels like you are so hostile to it.
> 
> How is paying for the wall anymore of a "blank check" than paying for Obama's healthcare boondoggle?  Since when is paying for things giving them a "blank check?"  That's just one of those labels leftwingers like to throw around innappropiately, like "extreme."  They use it because it polls well with the leftwing imbeciles, not because it means anything.
> 
> You can repeat your horseshit 1000 times, and I'll knock it down 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullcrap, and you are crazy if you think that employers have been abiding by the federal laws or if you think that they haven't figured out how to get around the laws in order to employee the illegals vis a vis through contractors or actually setting them up as independent contractors who then come to work on their jobs/job sites without being directly tied to them.
> 
> I ask you, how does million's of illegals sustain themselves here without working ?  Easy -- They don't !!!!
Click to expand...


So you admit that employer sanctions haven't worked, but your conclusion is that employer sanctions are the way to solve the problem?   What am I missing here?   





beagle9 said:


> Just like Trump said, the wall basically will be established in some areas of need, along with upgrading or repairing existing barriers in need, applying technology where needed, and placing man power where needed.



Yeah? So?



beagle9 said:


> He is to ensure a full enforcement of the border, but just as he ran around carrying on about how much bowing (the aircraft manufacturer), who wanted to charge the government for new aircraft a huge amount of money, and then him re-negotiating those bids, then shouldn't it be that the American taxpayers can also question the price of this so called wall, it's implementation of, it's effectiveness, and it's design ???
> 
> Shouldn't the American taxpayers expect total transparency on the cost, effectiveness, plan, allocation of resources, enforcement, type of enforcement, and on the dealings with those employers inside this country who are a huge draw in the whole problem, and who have been breaking the law ??



Question it all you want, but you're an obstacle to getting anything passed.  We don't need the supporters of border security questioning anything when the Dim opponents are spewing a torrent of questioning and criticism.



beagle9 said:


> Shouldn't the American taxpayers get a better plan, along with enforcement, and a long term cost analysis, and the effectiveness of it all laid out to them in a very thorough way by the administration, instead of what we got with the ACA in which you spoke about in your post ?



There's a lot of things American taxpayers should get, but that isn't going to happen because the Dims have sworn their opposition to what Americans want.  We have to get what we can get.  Holding out for perfection is the plan of fools.



beagle9 said:


> To speak in this way is somehow liberal or etc in your book ??



Yes.  You're an obstacle.  You aren't part of the solution.



beagle9 said:


> Where did you get that I'm for open borders as you claimed ??  Are you lying out of desperation now ?? Why do you fear American's wanting transparency out of the Trump administration ??



All you do is attack any plan proposed to secure the border, so why wouldn't I assume you're for open borders?


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.
Click to expand...

But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border?


Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not worried about the wall since Mexico is paying for it. If they don't then no wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Another idiot who thinks he tells the Trump administration what to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot. Trump works for us....we don't work for him. The presidency is not a monarchy you petulant shrew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow...someone has done a 180° pivot. You were adamant that Barack Insane Obama had unlimited power when he was in office. Not once did you ever declare that he worked for the American people.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. I never said that. And I was never challenged to say whether or not Obama worked for the American people. But Obama isn't president now. Trump is and the orange oaf seems to think he is king. He is far worse than Obama and half as smart. The puerile beast is his own worst enemy.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
Click to expand...

But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...considering most of them are parasites who mooch off of society...it’s not surprising that they are all about getting stuff cheap at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

We ARE society you delusional fool. My vote is just as powerful as yours. My American citizenship weighs just as much as yours in the political arena. My tax dollars are just as valuable as yours. Who the fug do you think you RW zombies are? You aren't special and you sure don't own this country. It is mine as much as yours.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.
Click to expand...

You can't be this stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...considering most of them are parasites who mooch off of society...it’s not surprising that they are all about getting stuff cheap at the expense of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE society you delusional fool. My vote is just as powerful as yours. My American citizenship weighs just as much as yours in the political arena. My tax dollars are just as valuable as yours. Who the fug do you think you RW zombies are? You aren't special and you sure don't own this country. It is mine as much as yours.
Click to expand...


We won the election moron.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason to build the wall is precisely because the Democrats may get back into power.  I have no idea what I said that makes you conclude that I think that can't happen.  It's you that behaves as if we have all the time in the world, and that we can dicker endlessly about the price of the wall and where to build it.
> 
> Just get the fucking money up front.  Then we can worry about the details.
Click to expand...

. A wall has a function in which makes it work, and that function is run by human beings.  If the Demon-crats get back into power, and they abandon this wall along with it's enforcement of, then it becomes a wall in which you'll have a Demon-crat president standing a top of it saying "supporters tear down this wall".  He or she will appear the heroes of the world if this happens.

It's best to refocus, and get the precise and exact things needed to solve this huge problem, and to do it in a way that favors conservatives in the end.

Like Trump said, "he is a builder, and that's what he does is build things, and he does it under budget",  but that's not the issue here with illegal immigration.  It is far more complicated, and we don't need a simple but very costly barrier put up as a tiny band-aid on a huge open sore in which puss is steady oozing out of daily because we've been offered that in jest of.  We need to solve the problem once and for all, and it is a whole lot more complicated than talking about expensive barriers being put in place that soon will be embarrassing, because once they are breeched (like we see in those videos), people just throw up their hands and give up.

I'm not an obstacle to solving the issue, but more of a pragmatic person that wants real border security in every way possible.

This issue undermining the conservative party and the nation (because you have the swamp wanting their cheap labor), is just unexceptable. We don't need a bandaid or bullcrap slung on the issue, we just need viable solutions that most Americans can agree upon.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial



1) A wall won't work.  People will find ways around it as long as there are things on the other side they want. 

2) Illegal Immigration is a net benefit for the country.  

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

_According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent.  Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated. _


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A wall won't work.  People will find ways around it as long as there are things on the other side they want.
Click to expand...


Wrong.



JoeB131 said:


> 2) Illegal Immigration is a net benefit for the country.



Wrong



JoeB131 said:


> 2) Illegal Immigration is a net benefit for the country.
> 
> Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy
> 
> _According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent.  Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated. _



How does that prove I benefit from illegal aliens?  It doesn't.  No native born American benefits.  "The economy" is an abstraction that doesn't have a mortgage to pay.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A wall won't work.  People will find ways around it as long as there are things on the other side they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Illegal Immigration is a net benefit for the country.
> 
> Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy
> 
> _According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent.  Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that prove I benefit from illegal aliens?  It doesn't.  No native born American benefits.  "The economy" is an abstraction that doesn't have a mortgage to pay.
Click to expand...

. The illegals in the end will be used by the Demon-crats (as they are attempting to do now), to continue to claim that the USA is a racist slave wage loving society in which benefits greatly off of a low skilled lower class community of people who are looked upon like pure scum by others due to their not being able to free themselves from the victimhood status that is being exploited in it all. We don't need to continue down these paths in which creates a huge population that will ultimately come back someday to haunt our children and grandchildren who will be blamed in it all.  How can we be so selfish not to realize what goes on in it all, and what the long term affects are in it all ??


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A wall won't work.  People will find ways around it as long as there are things on the other side they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Illegal Immigration is a net benefit for the country.
> 
> Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy
> 
> _According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent.  Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that prove I benefit from illegal aliens?  It doesn't.  No native born American benefits.  "The economy" is an abstraction that doesn't have a mortgage to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . The illegals in the end will be used by the Demon-crats (as they are attempting to do now), to continue to claim that the USA is a racist slave wage loving society in which benefits greatly off of a low skilled lower class community of people who are looked upon like pure scum by others due to their not being able to free themselves from the victimhood status that is being exploited in it all. We don't need to continue down these paths in which creates a huge population that will ultimately come back someday to haunt our children and grandchildren who will be blamed in it all.  How can we be so selfish not to realize what goes on in it all, and what the long term affects are in it all ??
Click to expand...

The snowflakes claim Republicans are racist because they want cheap labor, but one of their main arguments for granting amnesty to illegals is that we need the cheap labor.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> How does that prove I benefit from illegal aliens? It doesn't. No native born American benefits. "The economy" is an abstraction that doesn't have a mortgage to pay.



Guy, if you are such an unskilled loser that an illegal deprives you of the ability to pay your mortgage, then that's kind of on you. 

Too bad you didn't develop work skills at some point.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that prove I benefit from illegal aliens? It doesn't. No native born American benefits. "The economy" is an abstraction that doesn't have a mortgage to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, if you are such an unskilled loser that an illegal deprives you of the ability to pay your mortgage, then that's kind of on you.
> 
> Too bad you didn't develop work skills at some point.
Click to expand...

It's the H1-Bs who are hurting my ability to pay my mortgage.  Over 3/4 of all hightech workers are immigrants.

You still didn't prove I benefit from illegal aliens.  Blue collar workers definitely don't benefit.  They're the ones who have to compete with them.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> It's the H1-Bs who are hurting my ability to pay my mortgage. Over 3/4 of all hightech workers are immigrants.



Okay, guy, but that has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Those guys are LEGALLY immigrating, because again, your one percenter boss would rather hire them than you.  

Probably because they won't be on the internet all day complaining about Mexicans and Immigrants and whoever else is making you mad. 



bripat9643 said:


> You still didn't prove I benefit from illegal aliens. Blue collar workers definitely don't benefit. They're the ones who have to compete with them.



sure I did.  They can buy agricultural products at affordable prices because the labor is there to harvest them.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the H1-Bs who are hurting my ability to pay my mortgage. Over 3/4 of all hightech workers are immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, but that has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Those guys are LEGALLY immigrating, because again, your one percenter boss would rather hire them than you.
> 
> Probably because they won't be on the internet all day complaining about Mexicans and Immigrants and whoever else is making you mad.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still didn't prove I benefit from illegal aliens. Blue collar workers definitely don't benefit. They're the ones who have to compete with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure I did.  They can buy agricultural products at affordable prices because the labor is there to harvest them.
Click to expand...

Americans who lost a job to an illegal didn't benefit, moron.


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that prove I benefit from illegal aliens? It doesn't. No native born American benefits. "The economy" is an abstraction that doesn't have a mortgage to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, if you are such an unskilled loser that an illegal deprives you of the ability to pay your mortgage, then that's kind of on you.
> 
> Too bad you didn't develop work skills at some point.
Click to expand...

. Not a question of the "work skills" in the 18 to 25 year's of age groups, for whom are most affected at these levels by this bullcrap, because this is the age where Americans were once learning to work when left high school. They can't get a job in many American job area's of labor anymore (like was once there for them in the past), because cheap labor has filled the positions once held by this crowd of up and coming workers.

It has had a major impact on our youth who needed these job's, and were cast aside because of pure greed on the parts of those who had forgotten how they started out in America, and how the labor positions held once had helped them to become hungry to do much better in life, and to push to succeed in life.  Now we have our youth sitting around committing suicide at alarming rates, killing their fellow students in terror attacks, doing every drug imaginable, living in mom's basement till 30 years old, and on and on and on it all goes while the lies and spin just get ramped up more and more and more, and all in order to just cover it all up.


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the H1-Bs who are hurting my ability to pay my mortgage. Over 3/4 of all hightech workers are immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, but that has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Those guys are LEGALLY immigrating, because again, your one percenter boss would rather hire them than you.
> 
> Probably because they won't be on the internet all day complaining about Mexicans and Immigrants and whoever else is making you mad.
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still didn't prove I benefit from illegal aliens. Blue collar workers definitely don't benefit. They're the ones who have to compete with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure I did.  They can buy agricultural products at affordable prices because the labor is there to harvest them.
Click to expand...

. You want to talk agriculture on an issue that has morphed far more into something that is way more complicated than migrants working in the fields on a seasonal basis. In the past migrants volunteered to come here and work in the fields, and then return to their countries of origin during the off season.

You're use of the agricultural industry is a weak attempt at tackling a very complicated illegal immigration issue.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> Americans who lost a job to an illegal didn't benefit, moron.



Again, if you are such a loser that an illegal beat you on getting a job, that's kind of on you.


----------



## JoeB131

beagle9 said:


> You want to talk agriculture on an issue that has morphed far more into something that is way more complicated than migrants working in the fields on a seasonal basis. In the past migrants volunteered to come here and work in the fields, and then return to their countries of origin during the off season.
> 
> You're use of the agricultural industry is a weak attempt at tackling a very complicated illegal immigration issue.



In the past, they had jobs to go back to in the "off season" in agriculture in their home countries.  that's the point.  

Before NAFTA destroyed Mexican corn farming because American corn was so darned cheap with the genetic engineering and the government subsidies to grow it.


----------



## JoeB131

beagle9 said:


> Not a question of the "work skills" in the 18 to 25 year's of age groups, for whom are most affected at these levels by this bullcrap, because this is the age where Americans were once learning to work when left high school. They can't get a job in many American job area's of labor anymore (like was once there for them in the past), because cheap labor has filled the positions once held by this crowd of up and coming workers.



do you know what I did to develop "work skills" between 18 and 25. I joined the army and went to college.  Even back in the 1980's, I didn't want to do the dishwashing jobs that these illegals are doing now. 



beagle9 said:


> It has had a major impact on our youth who needed these job's, and were cast aside because of pure greed on the parts of those who had forgotten how they started out in America, and how the labor positions held once had helped them to become hungry to do much better in life, and to push to succeed in life. Now we have our youth sitting around committing suicide at alarming rates, killing their fellow students in terror attacks, doing every drug imaginable, living in mom's basement till 30 years old, and on and on and on it all goes while the lies and spin just get ramped up more and more and more, and all in order to just cover it all up.



Again, that's more to do with them than it is to do with illegals.  

Here's the thing.  No 20 year old in college wants to even do the kind of jobs I did at that age.


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to talk agriculture on an issue that has morphed far more into something that is way more complicated than migrants working in the fields on a seasonal basis. In the past migrants volunteered to come here and work in the fields, and then return to their countries of origin during the off season.
> 
> You're use of the agricultural industry is a weak attempt at tackling a very complicated illegal immigration issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the past, they had jobs to go back to in the "off season" in agriculture in their home countries.  that's the point.
> 
> Before NAFTA destroyed Mexican corn farming because American corn was so darned cheap with the genetic engineering and the government subsidies to grow it.
Click to expand...

. Why didn't Mexico just refuse to participate in NAFTA, you know MMGA (make Mexico great again) ??  Can they not take a crap without America holding their hands ?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans who lost a job to an illegal didn't benefit, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you are such a loser that an illegal beat you on getting a job, that's kind of on you.
Click to expand...

Your sympathy for unemployed American workers is noted.


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a question of the "work skills" in the 18 to 25 year's of age groups, for whom are most affected at these levels by this bullcrap, because this is the age where Americans were once learning to work when left high school. They can't get a job in many American job area's of labor anymore (like was once there for them in the past), because cheap labor has filled the positions once held by this crowd of up and coming workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you know what I did to develop "work skills" between 18 and 25. I joined the army and went to college.  Even back in the 1980's, I didn't want to do the dishwashing jobs that these illegals are doing now.
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has had a major impact on our youth who needed these job's, and were cast aside because of pure greed on the parts of those who had forgotten how they started out in America, and how the labor positions held once had helped them to become hungry to do much better in life, and to push to succeed in life. Now we have our youth sitting around committing suicide at alarming rates, killing their fellow students in terror attacks, doing every drug imaginable, living in mom's basement till 30 years old, and on and on and on it all goes while the lies and spin just get ramped up more and more and more, and all in order to just cover it all up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that's more to do with them than it is to do with illegals.
> 
> Here's the thing.  No 20 year old in college wants to even do the kind of jobs I did at that age.
Click to expand...

. Every 20 year old isn't in college, and in fact we have far to many 20 year olds wasting their lives right now or destroying their lives right now, yet we place illegal immigration above them ??  You speak for the globalist and a globalist vision, and that's the rub in all this for you.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Trump is and the orange oaf seems to think he is king.


How do you figure? You can’t provide a _single_ example. Do you know why? Because President Trump has *strictly* adhered to the U.S. Constitution. He hasn’t overstepped his authority in even the slightest way. Quite the contrary, he has rejected power by reversing all of the Barack Insane Obama unconstitutional orders that illegally created power in the presidency that doesn’t exist.

You are truly a partisan hack.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
Click to expand...

A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> We ARE society you delusional fool. My vote is just as powerful as yours. My American citizenship weighs just as much as yours in the political arena. My tax dollars are just as valuable as yours. Who the fug do you think you RW zombies are? You aren't special and you sure don't own this country. It is mine as much as yours.


Yeah...and the American people have spoken. They rejected your batshit crazy progressive ideology. They handed the nation over to the Republicans because the left has failed us in a big way. *We the people* want the wall built. We don’t give a shit that you don’t like it because you want more illegals voters for your side.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> It's best to refocus, and get the precise and exact things needed to solve this huge problem, and to do it in a way that favors conservatives in the end.


You fail to realize that the “Demoncrats” can overturn _anything_ when they are in charge. But I *guarantee* you that they will *never* tear down a wall. It would cost a fortune and solve nothing. And it was piss off the nation. The wall is literally the most permanent thing the Republicans can do. Which is exactly why the left is opposing it so vehemently.


----------



## beagle9

P@triot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's best to refocus, and get the precise and exact things needed to solve this huge problem, and to do it in a way that favors conservatives in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to realize that the “Demoncrats” can overturn _anything_ when they are in charge. But I *guarantee* you that they will *never* tear down a wall. It would cost a fortune and solve nothing. And it was piss off the nation. The wall is literally the most permanent thing the Republicans can do. Which is exactly why the left is opposing it so vehemently.
Click to expand...

. Need to sit down with both sides as Trump is doing, and come up with the right solution.  Look the left aren't going away, so it's foolish to think that they can be contained in a 4 year span or even an 8 year span. But we can get the job done through a series of negotiations, and that is what will go on.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> 1) A wall won't work.  People will find ways around it as long as there are things on the other side they want.


A wall will work - which is exactly why you are so opposed to it. If it wouldn’t work, you would care.


JoeB131 said:


> 2) Illegal Immigration is a net benefit for the country.


Nothing illlegal is a benefit. Nothing. It’s pathetic how hard you try to come up with reasons why you want a foreign nation to invade this country.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> Need to sit down with both sides as Trump is doing, and come up with the right solution.  Look the left aren't going away, so it's foolish to think that they can be contained in a 4 year span or even an 8 year span. But we can get the job done through a series of negotiations, and that is what will go on.


It’s exponentially more foolish to think the left can be reasoned with, rationed with, or negotiated with. These are people so radicalized, they declare that a person can _think_ their way into a new gender. And they adamantly oppose stopping foreigners from invading this nation. It’s what they want. So how the fuck are you going to negotiate with that?


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> They can buy agricultural products at affordable prices because the labor is there to harvest them.


If produce tripled because we rid the U.S. of illegal aliens, it would _still_ be “affordable”. If you are such an unskilled loser that stopping our nation from being invaded deprives you of the ability to pay for produce, then that's kind of on you.

Too bad you didn't develop work skills at some point to afford the basics.


----------



## beagle9

P@triot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to sit down with both sides as Trump is doing, and come up with the right solution.  Look the left aren't going away, so it's foolish to think that they can be contained in a 4 year span or even an 8 year span. But we can get the job done through a series of negotiations, and that is what will go on.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s exponentially more foolish to think the left can be reasoned with, rationed with, or negotiated with. These are people so radicalized, they declare that a person can _think_ their way into a new gender. And they adamantly oppose stopping foreigners from invading this nation. It’s what they want. So how the fuck are you going to negotiate with that?
Click to expand...

. Agree, but what else is there ??


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> Americans who lost a job to an illegal didn't benefit, moron.


Joe is a selfish parasite. He doesn’t care about Americans. He cares about bringing down the U.S. and replacing it with communism to ensure he can mooch off of society until he dies.


----------



## P@triot

beagle9 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to sit down with both sides as Trump is doing, and come up with the right solution.  Look the left aren't going away, so it's foolish to think that they can be contained in a 4 year span or even an 8 year span. But we can get the job done through a series of negotiations, and that is what will go on.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s exponentially more foolish to think the left can be reasoned with, rationed with, or negotiated with. These are people so radicalized, they declare that a person can _think_ their way into a new gender. And they adamantly oppose stopping foreigners from invading this nation. It’s what they want. So how the fuck are you going to negotiate with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Agree, but what else is there ??
Click to expand...

If you agree with me - then why did you just state we should do the opposite? 

What else is there? Build a wall that will remain no matter who is in power.


----------



## dblack

P@triot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to sit down with both sides as Trump is doing, and come up with the right solution.  Look the left aren't going away, so it's foolish to think that they can be contained in a 4 year span or even an 8 year span. But we can get the job done through a series of negotiations, and that is what will go on.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s exponentially more foolish to think the left can be reasoned with, rationed with, or negotiated with. These are people so radicalized, they declare that a person can _think_ their way into a new gender. And they adamantly oppose stopping foreigners from invading this nation. It’s what they want. So how the fuck are you going to negotiate with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Agree, but what else is there ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you agree with me - then why did you just state we should do the opposite?
> 
> What else is there? Build a wall that will remain no matter who is in power.
Click to expand...


There's no such wall. If you can build, others can tear it down. And will.


----------



## dblack

P@triot said:


> Nothing illlegal is a benefit. Nothing.



What? You don't think it's possible for government to outlaw something that's beneficial? Have you been into daniel's stash?


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


meaning we spend more on less...


----------



## dblack

P@triot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's best to refocus, and get the precise and exact things needed to solve this huge problem, and to do it in a way that favors conservatives in the end.
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to realize that the “Demoncrats” can overturn _anything_ when they are in charge. But I *guarantee* you that they will *never* tear down a wall.
Click to expand...


That much I agree with. Democrats love totalitarian government. It's more likely that Republicans would tear it down, after they come to their senses. If they come to their senses.


----------



## JoeB131

beagle9 said:


> Every 20 year old isn't in college, and in fact we have far to many 20 year olds wasting their lives right now or destroying their lives right now, yet we place illegal immigration above them ?? You speak for the globalist and a globalist vision, and that's the rub in all this for you.



Again, if they are wasting their lives, THAT'S ON THEM!!!!  

Somehow, I don't think that 20 year old is going to find fulfillment in a dish-washing job he doesn't want.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not pro illegal immigration but the price of vegetables and fruits could go through the roof without that cheap labor.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...considering most of them are parasites who mooch off of society...it’s not surprising that they are all about getting stuff cheap at the expense of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE society you delusional fool. My vote is just as powerful as yours. My American citizenship weighs just as much as yours in the political arena. My tax dollars are just as valuable as yours. Who the fug do you think you RW zombies are? You aren't special and you sure don't own this country. It is mine as much as yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We won the election moron.
Click to expand...

You stole the election but still lost the mandate. Most American voters did not vote for Trump. And his pathetic approval ratings back that up. What does that portend?  Well if he keeps pushing that wall building folly he will end up being a one term president. That is if Mueller doesn't scorch his fat ass first.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.
Click to expand...

Oh...I'm not...when you grow up you will see that.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> A wall will work - which is exactly why you are so opposed to it. If it wouldn’t work, you would care.



Um, actually, I'm against it because it's an ugly sentiment and a waste of money.  



P@triot said:


> Nothing illlegal is a benefit. Nothing. It’s pathetic how hard you try to come up with reasons why you want a foreign nation to invade this country.



Sure it is.   Just because they make goofy laws to appeal to your bigotry isn't the issue here.  THe fact is, as long as we want services done cheaply, we will have an immigrant labor market. 

Always have...always will.  

Our immigration laws are like the prohibition laws.  Trying to prevent people from getting what they want. 



P@triot said:


> Joe is a selfish parasite. He doesn’t care about Americans. He cares about bringing down the U.S. and replacing it with communism to ensure he can mooch off of society until he dies.



Again, probably work harder than you do, buddy.  

And I'm all for cutting corporate welfare and other boondoggles from people mooching off society. 



P@triot said:


> If produce tripled because we rid the U.S. of illegal aliens, it would _still_ be “affordable”. If you are such an unskilled loser that stopping our nation from being invaded deprives you of the ability to pay for produce, then that's kind of on you.



Actually, the reason why food is affordable is because of cheap labor.  Food costs have gone down 

In 1960, groceries made up 14% of a household budget.  Today its down to 6%.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is and the orange oaf seems to think he is king.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure? You can’t provide a _single_ example. Do you know why? Because President Trump has *strictly* adhered to the U.S. Constitution. He hasn’t overstepped his authority in even the slightest way. Quite the contrary, he has rejected power by reversing all of the Barack Insane Obama unconstitutional orders that illegally created power in the presidency that doesn’t exist.
> 
> You are truly a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Yah...that's why Trump is sweating an investigation by Mueller. But the bullying buffoon was handed the presidency on a silver platter. His adopted party controls all 3 
Branches of government and Obama passed on to him a thriving economy. Yet, his administration is still struggling. to get things done.. Obama had a hostile RW dominated  congress that wanted him to fail .So his bipartisan initiatives were met with obstinate resistance, leaving him with one option...that being the use of Executive Orders, based on precedence, to get things done.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.
Click to expand...

So what's new? Bodies are frequently being found along the southern border. Some illegals.get caught trying to cross over and and some get through. I don't see those dynamics changing much if illegals are forced to divert to seafaring or hitching rides as stowaways on ships. But we aren't just talking about Mexicans here. We are talking about illegal immigrants from around the world.

And refugees from Cuba are still welcomed with open arms...while Trump has tried to curb the trickle of Haitians brave enough to
head out to sea on rickety rafts and leaking biats.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE society you delusional fool. My vote is just as powerful as yours. My American citizenship weighs just as much as yours in the political arena. My tax dollars are just as valuable as yours. Who the fug do you think you RW zombies are? You aren't special and you sure don't own this country. It is mine as much as yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...and the American people have spoken. They rejected your batshit crazy progressive ideology. They handed the nation over to the Republicans because the left has failed us in a big way. *We the people* want the wall built. We don’t give a shit that you don’t like it because you want more illegals voters for your side.
Click to expand...

You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People" but they aren' any more American than the majority who didn't vote for his trifling ass. Trump's base represents only about 30% of the voting public.  Further...61% of the "American People" don't want the wall built. So add up the numbers before trying to tell me what the American peopke want.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to sit down with both sides as Trump is doing, and come up with the right solution.  Look the left aren't going away, so it's foolish to think that they can be contained in a 4 year span or even an 8 year span. But we can get the job done through a series of negotiations, and that is what will go on.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s exponentially more foolish to think the left can be reasoned with, rationed with, or negotiated with. These are people so radicalized, they declare that a person can _think_ their way into a new gender. And they adamantly oppose stopping foreigners from invading this nation. It’s what they want. So how the fuck are you going to negotiate with that?
Click to expand...

The mysterious left apparently isn't the political monolith you think it is. Otherwise the democrats would always be in power.


----------



## P@triot

dblack said:


> There's no such wall. If you can build, others can tear it down. And will.


As dumb as the Dumbocrats are - they are *never* going to spend _billions_ of dollars to tear down a wall when there would be absolutely no reason to do so other than to openly admit that they want the country invaded by another nation. And they aren't going to do that. You're just being stupid now.


----------



## regent

Sounds like the wall will stop all illegal immigration, not a one will get in after the wall.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will work - which is exactly why you are so opposed to it. If it wouldn’t work, you would care.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, actually, I'm against it because it's an ugly sentiment and a waste of money.
Click to expand...

Um..._actually_...you *love* to spend *other* people's money. And you are one walking ugly sentiment. Everything you say, everything you do, is the epitome of ugly. Your hate for America. Your contempt for liberty. Your denial of God.

The fact is - you vehemently oppose this because you know damn well it will work. And you oppose anything Republicans will do that will be successful.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> Sounds like the wall will stop all illegal immigration, not a one will get in after the wall.


Actually - to reasonable people (ie everyone who isn't a Dumbocrat), it sounds like the wall will do exactly what it is designed to do. Prevent the overwhelming majority of criminals invading this nation. Making it possible for our limited resources to focus on the small minority that still makes their way into our nation.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing illlegal is a benefit. Nothing. It’s pathetic how hard you try to come up with reasons why you want a foreign nation to invade this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.   Just because they make goofy laws to appeal to your bigotry isn't the issue here.  THe fact is, as long as we want services done cheaply, we will have an immigrant labor market.
Click to expand...

See what I mean about you and your ugly sentiments? There is *nothing* beneficial about exploiting others because you're too lazy and too greedy to do something yourself. And there is *nothing* beneficial about both the exploited labor and the employer evading taxes on all of that labor (one of many reasons Dumbocrats have built a $20 trillion national debt for us).


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe is a selfish parasite. He doesn’t care about Americans. He cares about bringing down the U.S. and replacing it with communism to ensure he can mooch off of society until he dies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, probably work harder than you do, buddy.
Click to expand...

I believe that actually. It's not easy being a parasite in America (much easier in Canada, Europe, ect.). It does take some effort in this nation to mooch off of society.

Personally, I'm proud of the fact that I don't work "hard". I work smart. I work efficient. And I do have to put in some insanely long hours at times, but I make sure not to work "hard" as that doesn't add value to my employer or our clients.


----------



## regent

P@triot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will work - which is exactly why you are so opposed to it. If it wouldn’t work, you would care.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, actually, I'm against it because it's an ugly sentiment and a waste of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um..._actually_...you *love* to spend *other* people's money. And you are one walking ugly sentiment. Everything you say, everything you do, is the epitome of ugly. Your hate for America. Your contempt for liberty. Your denial of God.
> 
> The fact is - you vehemently oppose this because you know damn well it will work. And you oppose anything Republicans will do that will be successful.
Click to expand...

So what is the greatest conservative's-Republican success story?


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Yah...that's why Trump is sweating an investigation by Mueller.


No - he’s _laughing_ at the investigation by Mueller. So far, all roads from Russia have lead directly to Hitlery Clinton and the Dumbocrats.


JQPublic1 said:


> But the bullying buffoon was handed the presidency on a silver platter. His adopted party controls all 3 Branches of government


This is *President Trump’s* first year in office. In Barack Insane Obama’s first year in office, he too had control of all 3 branches of government by his party.


JQPublic1 said:


> Yet, his administration is still struggling. to get things done.. Obama had a hostile RW dominated  congress that wanted him to fail


Barack Insane Obama’s party not only controlled all 3 branches of government sparky, he actually had a *super* *majority* (something President Trump has never had).

Like I said, you are _truly_ a partisan hack. You don’t have any of the facts correct.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Cheap produce isn’t an excuse to violate the law. Cheap produce also isn’t an excuse to exploit people. For fuck’s sake - what is wrong with _you_?!?
> 
> 
> 
> You got to laugh when these leftwing idiots admit they were willing to exploit poor people so they can have a cheap salad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...considering most of them are parasites who mooch off of society...it’s not surprising that they are all about getting stuff cheap at the expense of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE society you delusional fool. My vote is just as powerful as yours. My American citizenship weighs just as much as yours in the political arena. My tax dollars are just as valuable as yours. Who the fug do you think you RW zombies are? You aren't special and you sure don't own this country. It is mine as much as yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We won the election moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stole the election but still lost the mandate. Most American voters did not vote for Trump. And his pathetic approval ratings back that up. What does that portend?  Well if he keeps pushing that wall building folly he will end up being a one term president. That is if Mueller doesn't scorch his fat ass first.
Click to expand...

His approval ratings are simply the result of the nonstop fake news media war against him.  Trump won fair and square, and that's what really pisses off you snowflake douchebags.  Trump will be a one term president if he doesn't build the wall.  The only people who won't vote for him because of the wall were never going to vote for him anyway.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's new? Bodies are frequently being found along the southern border. Some illegals.get caught trying to cross over and and some get through. I don't see those dynamics changing much if illegals are forced to divert to seafaring or hitching rides as stowaways on ships. But we aren't just talking about Mexicans here. We are talking about illegal immigrants from around the world.
> 
> And refugees from Cuba are still welcomed with open arms...while Trump has tried to curb the trickle of Haitians brave enough to
> head out to sea on rickety rafts and leaking biats.
Click to expand...


That's because you are a snowflake moron.  You don't see what you don't want to see.  If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one.  The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the wall is going to do is make fruitpickers  htichhike to the oceans and rent boats to come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I'm not...when you grow up you will see that.
Click to expand...

Your posts indicate otherwise.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Sounds like the wall will stop all illegal immigration, not a one will get in after the wall.


No one made that claim, dumbass.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the wall will stop all illegal immigration, not a one will get in after the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> No one made that claim, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Well certainly before the wall is built estimates have been made as to the wall's effectiveness, or lack thereof.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the wall will stop all illegal immigration, not a one will get in after the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> No one made that claim, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well certainly before the wall is built estimates have been made as to the wall's effectiveness, or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

All the estimates I've seen say it will be anywhere from 90% to 99% effective.


----------



## charwin95

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the wall will stop all illegal immigration, not a one will get in after the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> No one made that claim, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Aw stop it Bri your tickling me. 

You can go around, under and over the wall it’s that simple. It’s just a waste of tax payers money. 

Last week they tested these prototypes walls using special forces from Florida team to scale the wall. 
That’s one of the dumbest test I’ve ever seen. 
Of course you can not just simply scale those walls but they didn’t use a 30 foot ladder, a cheap drones to carry a rope or just simply 20 feet ladder then throw a rope over or drill the wall stick 6 inches of rod distance of every 2 feet as your way upwards....... There goes your beautiful and sexy walls 

Of course when these special forces go on a missions you do not expect them carrying a 30 feet ladder. 

The estimated cost is $18+ billions at 18 feet tall or $20+ billions at 30 feet tall and lousy six feet deep. If they can make tunnels a mile long........  how difficult is that to dig 6 feet? 

Those cost are only the materials it doesn’t include 500 or 1,000 miles of pavement roads, heavy machinery, deliveries, supplies and materials, temporary living spaces for workers, maintenance etc etc etc......... And WiFi to entertain those bored borders guards.  


Build The Wall: U.S Special Forces Tried To Breach Trump's Border Wall–They Couldn't Do It


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"


They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> All the estimates I've seen say it will be anywhere from 90% to 99% effective.


Which is exactly why the left is completely losing their shit over just the thought of this wall. They know two things:

1. It will be _very_ effective

2. It is permanent. It cannot and will not be undone (unlike legislation or budgets)


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> As dumb as the Dumbocrats are - they are *never* going to spend _billions_ of dollars to tear down a wall when there would be absolutely no reason to do so other than to openly admit that they want the country invaded by another nation. And they aren't going to do that. You're just being stupid now.



THey won't have to tear it down... 

Just not be particulary eager to plug up the holes the illegals will cut into it. 

That said, Trump will get removed long before the first section is ever put up.


----------



## P@triot

JoeB131 said:


> That said, Trump will get removed long before the first section is ever put up.


Says the man who claimed *President Trump* would “never” get elected...


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> As dumb as the Dumbocrats are - they are *never* going to spend _billions_ of dollars to tear down a wall when there would be absolutely no reason to do so other than to openly admit that they want the country invaded by another nation. And they aren't going to do that. You're just being stupid now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THey won't have to tear it down...
> 
> Just not be particulary eager to plug up the holes the illegals will cut into it.
> 
> That said, Trump will get removed long before the first section is ever put up.
Click to expand...


So you are admitting they want to sabotage the wall.  Only a scumbag traitor would admit such a thing, or do it.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yah...that's why Trump is sweating an investigation by Mueller.
> 
> 
> 
> No - he’s _laughing_ at the investigation by Mueller. So far, all roads from Russia have lead directly to Hitlery Clinton and the Dumbocrats.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the bullying buffoon was handed the presidency on a silver platter. His adopted party controls all 3 Branches of government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is *President Trump’s* first year in office. In Barack Insane Obama’s first year in office, he too had control of all 3 branches of government by his party.
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, his administration is still struggling. to get things done.. Obama had a hostile RW dominated  congress that wanted him to fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barack Insane Obama’s party not only controlled all 3 branches of government sparky, he actually had a *super* *majority* (something President Trump has never had).
> 
> Like I said, you are _truly_ a partisan hack. You don’t have any of the facts correct.
Click to expand...

All of my facts were correct...Trump's adopted party  does dominate  all three branches of government and he also was handed an economy well on the way to recovery. The stuff you added to my narrative 
Doesn't count since it isn't what i said.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's new? Bodies are frequently being found along the southern border. Some illegals.get caught trying to cross over and and some get through. I don't see those dynamics changing much if illegals are forced to divert to seafaring or hitching rides as stowaways on ships. But we aren't just talking about Mexicans here. We are talking about illegal immigrants from around the world.
> 
> And refugees from Cuba are still welcomed with open arms...while Trump has tried to curb the trickle of Haitians brave enough to
> head out to sea on rickety rafts and leaking biats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you are a snowflake moron.  You don't see what you don't want to see.  If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one.  The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.
Click to expand...

I'm complaining abiut the wall because I think my tax dollars could be better spent on something of far more importance...like infrastructure and Obamacare


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about spending coupled with revenue cutting tax breaks  is why our national deficit and debt keeps growing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes their journey much harder and thus less likely for them to succeed. That’s the entire idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I'm not...when you grow up you will see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your posts indicate otherwise.
Click to expand...


Says the moron who supports a known pathological  liar and possible Manchurian Candidate for president. Now THAT is the height of stupidity.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
Click to expand...

You can't validate any of that and you know it.
You surrogate punks just drink the kool- aid and repeat anything you hear coming from the Fox propaganda machine or Flush Phlegmglob.(excuse the typos...i meant Rush Limbaugh)


----------



## Dale Smith

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
> 
> 
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's new? Bodies are frequently being found along the southern border. Some illegals.get caught trying to cross over and and some get through. I don't see those dynamics changing much if illegals are forced to divert to seafaring or hitching rides as stowaways on ships. But we aren't just talking about Mexicans here. We are talking about illegal immigrants from around the world.
> 
> And refugees from Cuba are still welcomed with open arms...while Trump has tried to curb the trickle of Haitians brave enough to
> head out to sea on rickety rafts and leaking biats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you are a snowflake moron.  You don't see what you don't want to see.  If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one.  The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm complaining abiut the wall because I think my tax dollars could be better spent on something of far more importance...like infrastructure and Obamacare
Click to expand...



Did you ever stop to think that if we were not having to pay for the healthcare of ten percent of the population that are here illegally that it might make healthcare more affordable?


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
Click to expand...

Russian hackers aren't Americans.


----------



## Dale Smith

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian hackers aren't Americans.
Click to expand...



It HAD to be the ROOOSKIES because no one would ever vote against leftards!


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't validate any of that and you know it.
Click to expand...

You’re an idiot. And a partisan hack. And _you_ know it.

1.8 Million Voters Are Dead (And Other Facts You Didn’t Know About Voter Fraud)

New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian hackers aren't Americans.
Click to expand...

No they are not - but that doesn’t stop the Dumbocrats from employing them to help them win elections.​


----------



## dudmuck

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't validate any of that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re an idiot. And a partisan hack. And _you_ know it.
> 
> 1.8 Million Voters Are Dead (And Other Facts You Didn’t Know About Voter Fraud)
> 
> New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
Click to expand...

_"The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization located in Tallahassee, Florida. GAI was founded in 2012 by Peter Schweizer and Stephen Bannon with funding from Robert Mercer and family. Schweizer serves as the group's president."
GAI is basically same as breitbart.
Even Paul Ryan calls it out._


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go. At least be big enough to admit that you got taken. That your anti Obama, your anti swamp savior turned out to be just another reptile preaching amnesty. After all the preaching here you are having to defend amnesty. Sad! Bigly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
Click to expand...


One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.

Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.

The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.

What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Mexicans can’t walk on water...
> 
> 
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's new? Bodies are frequently being found along the southern border. Some illegals.get caught trying to cross over and and some get through. I don't see those dynamics changing much if illegals are forced to divert to seafaring or hitching rides as stowaways on ships. But we aren't just talking about Mexicans here. We are talking about illegal immigrants from around the world.
> 
> And refugees from Cuba are still welcomed with open arms...while Trump has tried to curb the trickle of Haitians brave enough to
> head out to sea on rickety rafts and leaking biats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you are a snowflake moron.  You don't see what you don't want to see.  If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one.  The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm complaining abiut the wall because I think my tax dollars could be better spent on something of far more importance...like infrastructure and Obamacare
Click to expand...

The voters overruled your opinion.

Sucks, don't it?


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Tell us what you propose to put up for a vote in Congress. If you can't tell us what you want Congress to vote on, then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
Click to expand...


The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about people being horribly exploited so you can get cheap lettuce is why you are a total tool and a horrible person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This imbecile doesn't seem to realize that we have a coast gaurd for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I'm not...when you grow up you will see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your posts indicate otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the moron who supports a known pathological  liar and possible Manchurian Candidate for president. Now THAT is the height of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe anyone is falling for that horseshit?  You voted for the most corrupt criminal ever to run for public office.  She holds the record on taking bribes.


----------



## P@triot

dudmuck said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't validate any of that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re an idiot. And a partisan hack. And _you_ know it.
> 
> 1.8 Million Voters Are Dead (And Other Facts You Didn’t Know About Voter Fraud)
> 
> New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization located in Tallahassee, Florida. GAI was founded in 2012 by Peter Schweizer and Stephen Bannon with funding from Robert Mercer and family. Schweizer serves as the group's president."
> GAI is basically same as breitbart.
> Even Paul Ryan calls it out._
Click to expand...

When you can’t deny the message - attack the messenger. The left’s favorite idiotic tactic.


----------



## dudmuck

P@triot said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't validate any of that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re an idiot. And a partisan hack. And _you_ know it.
> 
> 1.8 Million Voters Are Dead (And Other Facts You Didn’t Know About Voter Fraud)
> 
> New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization located in Tallahassee, Florida. GAI was founded in 2012 by Peter Schweizer and Stephen Bannon with funding from Robert Mercer and family. Schweizer serves as the group's president."
> GAI is basically same as breitbart.
> Even Paul Ryan calls it out._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can’t deny the message - attack the messenger. The left’s favorite idiotic tactic.
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan denied the message, and it went right over your head.


----------



## P@triot

dudmuck said:


> Paul Ryan denied the message, and it went right over your head.


A politician denied something? Wow! You don’t say?


----------



## regent

I wonder how many American citizens today can trace their family back to immigrants. Probably the only ones that can't are the native Americans and ex-slaves?


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> I wonder how many American citizens today can trace their family back to immigrants. Probably the only ones that can't are the native Americans and ex-slaves?



So?


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't validate any of that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re an idiot. And a partisan hack. And _you_ know it.
> 
> 1.8 Million Voters Are Dead (And Other Facts You Didn’t Know About Voter Fraud)
> 
> New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
Click to expand...

Yet only a few people have been arrested for actual voter and some were Republicans.
There have been just four documented cases of voter fraud in the 2016 election

Here's what we found:



*Cases of voter fraud*


*A woman in Iowa who voted twice.* Terri Lynn Rote had the enormous misfortune of bad timing. Right as the candidate she supported, Trump, was drawing attention to fraud cases, Rote decided to try to vote twice in Des Moines, and got caught. The case made national headlines simply by virtue of the fact that it happened when it did, and that she voted for Trump.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian hackers aren't Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not - but that doesn’t stop the Dumbocrats from employing them to help them win elections.​
Click to expand...


You silly MF you know damn well what I meant. And so does Robert Mueller. Trump wanted to fire "the terminator" but his wiser staff advised him against it because that would be obstruction. KIss my arse you POS.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they can float on rafts or rickety boats.
> 
> 
> 
> A risk that many will not be willing to take. And of those that do, a certain percentage will die trying. Of the percentage left after that, the majority will be caught by the coast guard or border patrol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's new? Bodies are frequently being found along the southern border. Some illegals.get caught trying to cross over and and some get through. I don't see those dynamics changing much if illegals are forced to divert to seafaring or hitching rides as stowaways on ships. But we aren't just talking about Mexicans here. We are talking about illegal immigrants from around the world.
> 
> And refugees from Cuba are still welcomed with open arms...while Trump has tried to curb the trickle of Haitians brave enough to
> head out to sea on rickety rafts and leaking biats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you are a snowflake moron.  You don't see what you don't want to see.  If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one.  The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm complaining abiut the wall because I think my tax dollars could be better spent on something of far more importance...like infrastructure and Obamacare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The voters overruled your opinion.
> 
> Sucks, don't it?
Click to expand...

The voters? What voters? The minority 30% of voters helped by the Electoral College to overrule the majority? Yes, that does suck and change is needed. If the designation "American People" is to be used it ought to refer to the majority...not a minority of RW populist extremists who consort with the likes of Putin and Trump.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no wall on the coastlines so why do we need one on the southern border? And the coastlines are even longer than the Southern border.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be this stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I'm not...when you grow up you will see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your posts indicate otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the moron who supports a known pathological  liar and possible Manchurian Candidate for president. Now THAT is the height of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you actually believe anyone is falling for that horseshit?  You voted for the most corrupt criminal ever to run for public office.  She holds the record on taking bribes.
Click to expand...


You don't know who I voted for but that didn't stop you from lying as if you knew. You're just like your lying leader. And the way you've been hugging his testicles Trump damn sure is your leader. 
But your personal indictment of Hillary is but a meaningless temporary diversion from the most diabolical fiend ever to occupy the White House. He may not be the devil but the devil is in him.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't validate any of that and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re an idiot. And a partisan hack. And _you_ know it.
> 
> 1.8 Million Voters Are Dead (And Other Facts You Didn’t Know About Voter Fraud)
> 
> New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization located in Tallahassee, Florida. GAI was founded in 2012 by Peter Schweizer and Stephen Bannon with funding from Robert Mercer and family. Schweizer serves as the group's president."
> GAI is basically same as breitbart.
> Even Paul Ryan calls it out._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can’t deny the message - attack the messenger. The left’s favorite idiotic tactic.
Click to expand...

Hey dummy...Did you miss the part where Paul Ryan called out the source, too? You just can't bring your self to face the truth. You are a lost soul..seduced by the false promises of a demogogue...


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
Click to expand...


1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here

2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country

3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you

4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> I wonder how many American citizens today can trace their family back to immigrants.


The real question is - I wonder how many American citizens today can trace their family back to *legal* immigrants.

You can _always_ count on regent to post the passive/aggressive partisan crap with a disingenuous twist. My favorite part about it is that he actually believes he’s being “clever” and “outwitting” everyone into buying into his nonsense.

He’s a clone of wrongwinger in that capacity. Neither can make a rational case yet both believe they are “clever” with their nonsense (wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they were the same person).


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> Trump wanted to fire "the terminator" but his wiser staff advised him against it because that would be obstruction. KIss my arse you POS.


First of all - it doesn’t matter what *President Trump* wants. It only matters what he does. Did he fire Robert Mueller? Yes or No?

Second - it wouldn’t have been “obstruction of justice” you dumb, dimwit. Mueller would have been simply replaced and the investigation would have continued.


----------



## P@triot

JQPublic1 said:


> You are a lost soul..seduced by the false promises of a demogogue...


Well...admitting you have a problem _is_ the first step, JQ. You were seriously seduced by Obama (and you are definitely a lost soul).


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wanted to fire "the terminator" but his wiser staff advised him against it because that would be obstruction. KIss my arse you POS.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all - it doesn’t matter what *President Trump* wants. It only matters what he does. Did he fire Robert Mueller? Yes or No?
> 
> Second - it wouldn’t have been “obstruction of justice” you dumb, dimwit. Mueller would have been simply replaced and the investigation would have continued.
Click to expand...

The most conspicuous issue is Trump is on record as wanting  to fire Mueller which gives us a peek into his demented guilt ridden mind. Why even ponder firing the special prosecutor unless you're hiding something and he's getting too damn close to finding what that is? I wish the dumb sonnova byatch
had fired Mueller. Do you even have a clue as to why?

I'll give you a clue...We've seen this picture before when Nixon fired the special counsel in the Watergate scandal investigation. Obviously you are completely clueless about that outcome. Your ignorance is still reverberating around the forum. Let me school your stupid arse:

 After Nixon fired the special prosecutor it didn't end there like he thought it would. You see...the court and Congress had something to say about it.

A Federal district judge ruled the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor was illegal. Subsequently,  the congressional judiciary commitee issued articles of impeachment charging Nixon with ...are your eyes open.?..if not open them wide...i don't want you to miss this... *Nixon was charged with Obstrucion of Justice...*among other things.

My point here is that Trump's mindset in wanting to fire Mueller appeared to reflect  desperation like  that exemplified by Nixon under similar circumstances. The only reasonTrump didn't fire Mueller is because his counselors threatened to walk out on him if he did. Apparently they hadn't forgotten what happened to Nixon.

So now, let's sit back and see what happens.
As for my personal assessment...I think Mueller is about to deflate the orange balloon you know as dumb Donald Trump.


----------



## JQPublic1

P@triot said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lost soul..seduced by the false promises of a demogogue...
> 
> 
> 
> Well...admitting you have a problem _is_ the first step, JQ. You were seriously seduced by Obama (and you are definitely a lost soul).
Click to expand...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

bripat9643, post: 16874740 





bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall..



The wall is supposed to cost the American Federal taxpayer zero. So the only lies getting an assist by the OP is candidate Trumpo's huge lie that Mexico will be paying for the Great Hate Wall plus any suggestion or innuendo that Federal tax dollars go directly in huge sums to assist illegal immigrants is another lie.

The cited calculations by hate based conservative groups are lies since they are not factoring in the economic plus these working people bring to the economy.

Certain studies can be found that calculate illegal immigration presents a wash on the economy.

_"After weighing the financial pros against the cons, she says the U.S. economy comes out slightly ahead due to the presence of illegal aliens."_

Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost?

According to the above linked report conservative hate groups don't calculate this windfall for Americans into to their hate calculations;

_"At the same time, those whose jobs are paid legally – at least fifty percent, by some estimates – end up paying social security and other payroll taxes without ever collecting benefits. Since illegal immigrants are believed to constitute up to 5 percent of the U.S. economy, their tax contributions will mean a revenue windfall for legal residents."_

And fancy this statistic:

_"While the state and local tax contributions of undocumented immigrants vary by region, we found that undocumented immigrants nationwide pay on average 8% of their incomes in taxes to state and local governments. In contrast, the top 1% of taxpayers nationwide pay on average just 5.4%."_

Undocumented immigrants pay up on Tax Day: Column

So if one third of undocumented working families own homes and most of the rest live somewhere paying rent it does not appear that hate based calculations include the income to realtors? grocery stores, banks, electric companies, trucking companies and on and on which income and sales are taxed.

They earn money and spend mony. The number cited in this OP is a bold faced lie just like Trumpo's promise that Mexico will pay for the wall.

Nice try to shift those lies into the left.

It won't work because it is fake reality.


----------



## Norman

So many illegals in the country.

Get them out already and build a wall to not have us end up in this situation again.


----------



## Johann

The wall won't do shit because most illegals are simply legal immigrants/visitors that overstay their Visa. 

I voted for Trump but lets be real.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

The Original Tree said:


> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.




Only if you believe in fake reality. 

Because if you spend billions deporting every single undocumented but working family you not only have the costs of rounding up and deporting 13 million men women children to the other side of Trump's Great Hate Wall and supporting the 'already born here' orphans that you create, you also lose the economic gains to society plus the taxes they pay, 

Building the HATE WALL will leave no cost savings impact on the millions already here. But it is supposedly the cost of that 13 million upon which the OP's $billions is based.

You have a very weak fake reality argument. 

You should take it down. It is very stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Norman said:


> So many illegals in the country.
> 
> Get them out already and build a wall to not have us end up in this situation again.




Same goes for you. Unless you want mass deportations for other reasons than saving money,


NotfooledbyW, post: 19162436, 





NotfooledbyW said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you believe in fake reality.
> 
> Because if you spend billions deporting every single undocumented but working family you not only have the costs of rounding up and deporting 13 million men women children to the other side of Trump's Great Hate Wall and supporting the 'already born here' orphans that you create, you also lose the economic gains to society plus the taxes they pay,
> 
> Building the HATE WALL will leave no cost savings impact on the millions already here. But it is supposedly the cost of that 13 million upon which the OP's $billions is based.
> 
> You have a very weak fake reality argument.
> 
> You should take it down. It is very stupid.
Click to expand...


What is your motive. Pure law enforcement? You would deport Dreamers as well,


----------



## bripat9643

Johann said:


> The wall won't do shit because most illegals are simply legal immigrants/visitors that overstay their Visa.
> 
> I voted for Trump but lets be real.



That's snowflake illegal alian lie #126.  Overstays account for 40% of illegal aliens in the country.  ICE has quoted this figure numerous times, but snowflakes like you keep bumping it up because they think no one will call them on it.

Solving 60% of the problem is solving most of it.  Only a sleazy lying snowflake would claim that's not worth it.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> That's because you are a snowflake moron. You don't see what you don't want to see. If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one. The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.



Well, no, we don't want him building one because... 

It makes us look like a really ugly people
It's going to cost a lot of money we could be spending on better things. 
It's going to be really bad for the environment
It's going to require the government to seized the private land of lots of Americans to build it.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> Says the man who claimed *President Trump* would “never” get elected...



The people voted against him. He didn't get "elected".


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> So you are admitting they want to sabotage the wall. Only a scumbag traitor would admit such a thing, or do it.



I'm saying the wall won't work because you can dig under it, climb over it, bust holes into it, go around it, or just find another way to get in. 

Low flying Cessna.  Problem solved.


----------



## JoeB131

P@triot said:


> The real question is - I wonder how many American citizens today can trace their family back to *legal* immigrants.



Distinction without a difference. Most of our history, you got here, you were a legal immigrant.  

All my grandparents did was have to get on a boat from Germany.  Oh, no one was happy to see German immigrants between two wars with Germany, but they had no problem getting in.


----------



## Norman

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting they want to sabotage the wall. Only a scumbag traitor would admit such a thing, or do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the wall won't work because you can dig under it, climb over it, bust holes into it, go around it, or just find another way to get in.
> 
> Low flying Cessna.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.

Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.


----------



## JoeB131

Norman said:


> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.



Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but... 

Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.  

NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!  

Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico. 

So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.  

The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living. 

Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.


----------



## eddiew37

Republicans  Mess with them ?
*Koch Network Warns Trump Against ‘Arbitrary’ Immigration Cuts*
By 
John McCormick
January 27, 2018, 6:12 PM EST

Influential group says immigrants are key to nation’s future
Charles Koch has expressed strong support for the ‘dreamers’
The Koch political network on Saturday called on President Donald Trump and members of Congress to avoid any "arbitrary" reductions in immigration as part of negotiations over the future of undocumented "dreamers" brought to the U.S. as children.



“Immigrants are essential to the success of our country and addressing the plight of the dreamers is a top priority for this network," Brian Hooks, a senior official with the Koch organization, said in a statement. "We are committed to working with Congress and the White House to find a solution that does this without arbitrarily reducing the number of people who come here to contribute."



A statement from the group -- the most influential conservative organization outside the Republican Party -- was issued as hundreds of donors and potential donors gathered for a weekend summit at a desert resort near Palm Springs, California.



It was delivered following a proposal Thursday from the Trump administration that calls for a path to citizenship for as many as 1.8 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. But Trump also called for a reduction of legal immigration, as well as a $25 billion trust fund to pay for a southern border wall and other enhanced border security measures.



*‘Moral Imperative’*
A reduction in immigration runs counter to the views of the group’s top benefactors, billionaires Charles and David Koch. Charles Koch in December wrote an opinion piece with Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook that said it was a "political, economic and moral imperative" to quickly help the young immigrants with a permanent solution so they can "plan their lives and develop their talents.”

Keeping the Kochs and their donors happy is important for the GOP in an election year


----------



## Norman

JoeB131 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
Click to expand...


Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.

The solution: A wall.

Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.

Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws....or walls which the Clinton's chose to deal with that problem.


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading infrastructure will require labor.  And, improve the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

Norman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.
> 
> The solution: A wall.
> 
> Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.
> 
> Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws.
Click to expand...

The problem is that right wing solutions are nothing but socialism on a national basis, instead of the fine Capital plans they should have.

We have a Commerce Clause.


----------



## eddiew37

danielpalos said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.
> 
> The solution: A wall.
> 
> Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.
> 
> Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that right wing solutions are nothing but socialism on a national basis, instead of the fine Capital plans they should have.
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Right wing policies are instituted to benefit the wealthy  and they throw a bone with not much meat on it to their sheep to quiet them


----------



## JQPublic1

Norman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.
> 
> The solution: A wall.
> 
> Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.
> 
> Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws....or walls which the Clinton's chose to deal with that problem.
Click to expand...


I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants but they are not thieves.  The lawbreakers who hire them are the anti-American thieves. Obviously, employers who hire illegals are the real core of the problem. It would be a whole lot cheaper to bring the hammer down on the employers of illegals than to build a wall.


----------



## Norman

JQPublic1 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.
> 
> The solution: A wall.
> 
> Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.
> 
> Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws....or walls which the Clinton's chose to deal with that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants but they are not thieves.  The lawbreakers who hire them are the anti-American thieves. Obviously, employers who hire illegals are the real core of the problem. It would be a whole lot cheaper to bring the hammer down on the employers of illegals than to build a wall.
Click to expand...


I agree they are not thieves, although they have still committed a crime. I am making fun of JQPublic's far left way of problem solving, which if you extended to anything else, it would become obvious how retarded it is.

Although he probably advocates not having locked doors, burglar alarms or other protections. Most likely not because he believes they don't work, he just sides with thieves and illegals over honest hard working Americans. It's the far left way.


----------



## dblack

JQPublic1 said:


> I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants but they are not thieves.  The lawbreakers who hire them are the anti-American thieves. Obviously, employers who hire illegals are the real core of the problem. It would be a whole lot cheaper to bring the hammer down on the employers of illegals than to build a wall.



There you go. Democrats and Republicans are equally jazzed about the iron fist of government. They just have different targets in mind.


----------



## Crixus

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
Click to expand...



Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I propose Trump do like he said he would do and like you specifically l said he would do and not promis amnesty  after saying “no amnesty “ to get elected. Keep on, many remember your tantrums when they said amnesty was coming. When you get onboard with amnesty sweety?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... Here is Trump's deal (one I predicted before Trump negotiated it BTW):
> 
> *  ONE THIRD of the undocumented foreigners will have a path to citizenship
> 
> *  The wall will not affect 46 percent of the undocumented foreigners that come here through legal means and then never leave
> 
> *  So, once you subtract the alleged costs of 76 percent of the undocumented population, the wall becomes more expensive than any proposed benefit
> 
> * The anti-immigrant lobby likes to dwell on the alleged "_costs_" of undocumented foreigners being here.  Their accounting is highly dishonest for an accounting ledger has two sides.  Nobody has posted the amount of taxes the undocumented foreigner pays NOR, more importantly how much money they generate by producing more work for less money
> 
> *  Presupposing that a wall is erected and you give a third of those undocumented foreigners a pathway to citizenship, it will leave the door open for their families to come here.
> 
> Oh, the right will claim that Trump is saying that parents of Dreamers and so forth will not qualify as people that come here, but don't forget that the *United States Supreme Court* will weigh in.  Of the NINE Justices, you have six Catholics and three Jews.  There is *no way in Hell* that the Court is going to allow the government to separate families over a federal civil misdemeanor like improper entry.
> 
> *  We are nearing statistical zero unemployment, thereby negating any need for a wall
> 
> *  *AFTER* you've paid for the wall and the Dreamers and their families become Democrats, they will undo all of that effort and the wall will become irrelevant... So, why the wall?
> 
> With the wall comes armed drones and drones with cameras along with an army of ninja clad federal mercenaries that won't go away just because the wall becomes irrelevant.  And so there will come a *ONE WORLD POLICE FORCE* with the tools and manpower to watch every American 24 / 7 / 365 and jeopardize every Liberty our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
Click to expand...



So what’s the vetting process the Donald will use to temper his amnesty so that no bad guys get amnesty? I say deport all Dreamers who have any legal issues, Or dropped out of high schoolers that would get rid of 2/3’s of them.


----------



## beagle9

JQPublic1 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Trump's base of populist sheep are the" American People"
> 
> 
> 
> They _are_, snowflake. Dumbocrats vote with illegal aliens and dead people. Republicans vote with Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian hackers aren't Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they are not - but that doesn’t stop the Dumbocrats from employing them to help them win elections.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You silly MF you know damn well what I meant. And so does Robert Mueller. Trump wanted to fire "the terminator" but his wiser staff advised him against it because that would be obstruction. KIss my arse you POS.
Click to expand...

. No cullusion, no case, and thus far no cullusion. So how long do you figure that the taxpayers should be taken on this rollercoaster ride ??  Remember you are defending a case that even the compromised FBI agents have said that "there is no there, there".  If anything a case is building in the other direction, but Bob Mueller doesn't need to be the one residing over that case, because he has been compromised in the alledged cullusion case.


----------



## danielpalos

eddiew37 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.
> 
> The solution: A wall.
> 
> Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.
> 
> Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that right wing solutions are nothing but socialism on a national basis, instead of the fine Capital plans they should have.
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing policies are instituted to benefit the wealthy  and they throw a bone with not much meat on it to their sheep to quiet them
Click to expand...

With alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?


----------



## beagle9

Crixus said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
Click to expand...

. Walls have worked all over the world in order to cover up the corruption within those very nations that built those walls.

Look, all that is needed is to enforce the laws here, take away the drugs incentives from the traffickers and dealers, seriously crack down on employers through audits, stiff fines and jail time, and go after slum lords who are providing shelter to illegals that is more than likely being subsidized through government housing subsidies etc.

Dry up the incentives, and dry up the problem. It's just that simple.

The problem is that we have way too many Americans profiting from the illegals, trafficking, and every other bad that goes along with the problem.

Yes, border security is essential, and listening to the people who know best (the border patrol), is also essential on securing the border.

Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to the border patrol when they enforce the border, and then the country is undermining their efforts as soon as they attempt to do the right thing ??  It's no different than undermining the law enforcement in high crime areas, where the law enforcement ends up backing off, and then throwing their hands in the air.... It's the same undermining taking place, and usually it's the do gooder liberals that are the culprits, but then they're are others doing it for profit.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are a snowflake moron. You don't see what you don't want to see. If walls didn't work, then you wouldn't care if Trump built one. The fact that they do work marvelously well is the reason you a whining like a little girl over the prospect of Trump building one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, we don't want him building one because...
> 
> It makes us look like a really ugly people
> It's going to cost a lot of money we could be spending on better things.
> It's going to be really bad for the environment
> It's going to require the government to seized the private land of lots of Americans to build it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit
Bullshit
Bullshit
When did seizing property ever bother Democrats?  The EPA does it all the time, and without compensation.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Walls have worked all over the world in order to cover up the corruption within those very nations that built those walls.
> 
> Look, all that is needed is to enforce the laws here, take away the drugs incentives from the traffickers and dealers, seriously crack down on employers through audits, stiff fines and jail time, and go after slum lords who are providing shelter to illegals that is more than likely being subsidized through government housing subsidies etc.
> 
> Dry up the incentives, and dry up the problem. It's just that simple.
> 
> The problem is that we have way too many Americans profiting from the illegals, trafficking, and every other bad that goes along with the problem.
> 
> Yes, border security is essential, and listening to the people who know best (the border patrol), is also essential on securing the border.
> 
> Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to the border patrol when they enforce the border, and then the country is undermining their efforts as soon as they attempt to do the right thing ??  It's no different than undermining the law enforcement in high crime areas, where the law enforcement ends up backing off, and then throwing their hands in the air.... It's the same undermining taking place, and usually it's the do gooder liberals that are the culprits, but then they're are others doing it for profit.
Click to expand...

It's already against the law for employers to hire illegals, so your proposed solution obviously does't work.  You see, you solution depends on Democrat bureaucrats and politicians to do their jobs, and that is never going to happen.  The wall doesn't depend that.

The border patrol supports the wall.  Why don't you listen to them?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man who claimed *President Trump* would “never” get elected...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people voted against him. He didn't get "elected".
Click to expand...

Yes he did, dumbass.  According to the rules, he was elected.  You don't get to change the rules after the fact.


----------



## JQPublic1

Norman said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should just call it a defeat. There is nothing that can be done, just let the 3rd world hordes invade and take over, they will find a way anyway. Laws should not even be attempted to be enforced as the criminals will find a way anyway.
> 
> Or just maybe, the wall will actually drastically reduce illegal immigration. Sure those with resources can find a way to get in, but guess what, that eliminates a lot of illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I know i have to talk to conservatives like they are retards, but...
> 
> Let's say you are having a problem with mice.  You are having a problem with mice because you have a big old chuck of delicious cheese in the middle of your kitchen.  That's why you have a problem with mice.
> 
> NOW- you can try to make the doors tougher, plug up every nook and crany in the foundation, but guess what, buddy, you are still going to have a mouse problem.  Because as long as you have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in!
> 
> Now, we are having a problem with undocumented labor. The reason why we are having a problem is because we have a bunch of jobs that Americans don't want to do, that pay a lot better than jobs in Mexico.
> 
> So we can try to plug up the border, but as long as we have something they want, they are going to find a way to get in.  And an undocumented worker is a lot more resourceful than a mouse.
> 
> The simple solution would be to enforce workplace compliance to make sure no one is hiring illegals.  That will probably mean costs of services and goods will shoot straight up because Americans still won't want to pick lettuce or clean up other people's puke and shit for a living.
> 
> Or we can just accept that we've always had a need for unskilled labor to do undesirable jobs, and craft our policy in a way to control it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America is great nation, and everyone wants to get in. Just as our fridges are full of goodies from a mouse's perspective.
> 
> The solution: A wall.
> 
> Your "solution": Give up, they are going to get our goods anyway so why resist. What a tard... I would rather get a mouse trap unlike you as an insane person.
> 
> Just let thieves thieve too, they are going to get what they want anyway so might as well not have any restrictions or laws....or walls which the Clinton's chose to deal with that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants but they are not thieves.  The lawbreakers who hire them are the anti-American thieves. Obviously, employers who hire illegals are the real core of the problem. It would be a whole lot cheaper to bring the hammer down on the employers of illegals than to build a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree they are not thieves, although they have still committed a crime. I am making fun of JQPublic's far left way of problem solving, which if you extended to anything else, it would become obvious how retarded it is.
> 
> Although he probably advocates not having locked doors, burglar alarms or other protections. Most likely not because he believes they don't work, he just sides with thieves and illegals over honest hard working Americans. It's the far left way.
Click to expand...


I don't consciously set out to push far left nor far right doctrine.I see myself as a pragmatic apolitical thinker. I am versatile enough to take a bit of conservative and liberal philosophy to construct my own unique worldview. I'm not a follower nor am I a person who does things just because everyone else does.
That being said, let's examine your bizarre narrative. You seem to have a problem with prosecuting employers who hire illegals. You are so disturbed by that prospect you say I'm retarded for mentioning it. Why is that? You aren't making any sense. Please elaborate if you can.... 

And while you're at it...explain the outlandish analogy you created out of thin air.  You just agreed that illegal immigrants aren't thieves then you place the word thieves in your analogy. Stranger still is your flawed reasoning where you seemed to be comparing the security devices used to protect a fully enclosed structure (a home ) with a 2000 mi.  linear barrier that does not fully enclose those it is supposed to protect..
A PEW poll shows that over 60% of Americans don't support dumb Donald's Folly.
It isn't that we are siding with illegals, we just believe the illegal immigrant problem extends far beyond Mexico. And we know that arresting and indicting those who hire illegals is a cheaper and more practical approach
that eliminates the incentive for illegals to come here.

I


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are admitting they want to sabotage the wall. Only a scumbag traitor would admit such a thing, or do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the wall won't work because you can dig under it, climb over it, bust holes into it, go around it, or just find another way to get in.
> 
> Low flying Cessna.  Problem solved.
Click to expand...


That's all been shown to be bullshit.  Walls work everywhere they've been tried.  That's the fact that you can't get around.

And you did say that Democrats would demolish the wall after it was built.  You're a fucking traitor.


----------



## bripat9643

NotfooledbyW said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you believe in fake reality.
> 
> Because if you spend billions deporting every single undocumented but working family you not only have the costs of rounding up and deporting 13 million men women children to the other side of Trump's Great Hate Wall and supporting the 'already born here' orphans that you create, you also lose the economic gains to society plus the taxes they pay,
> 
> Building the HATE WALL will leave no cost savings impact on the millions already here. But it is supposedly the cost of that 13 million upon which the OP's $billions is based.
> 
> You have a very weak fake reality argument.
> 
> You should take it down. It is very stupid.
Click to expand...


Rounding up the dreamers is a cost separate from the cost of building the wall.  You can't knock the wall based on what it actually costs, so you try to change the terms of the debate to the cost of deporting illegal aliens, which is a separate issue.

There are no economic gains to me from illegal aliens.  Only a few wealthy people benefit from having cheap servants.


----------



## JQPublic1

dblack said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of illegal immigrants but they are not thieves.  The lawbreakers who hire them are the anti-American thieves. Obviously, employers who hire illegals are the real core of the problem. It would be a whole lot cheaper to bring the hammer down on the employers of illegals than to build a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. Democrats and Republicans are equally jazzed about the iron fist of government. They just have different targets in mind.
Click to expand...

What iron fist?  An iron fist was needed after Reagan opened the floodgates of illegal immigration when he was president. Thereafter, the cheap labor caused the iron fist to be replaced by kid gloves.


----------



## postman

bripat9643 said:


> Rounding up the dreamers is a cost separate from the cost of building the wall



And Trump said he would deport most of them within his first 100 days.

Since that hasn't happened within his first year, can we mark that down as another of Trumps 2,000+ lies.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Walls have worked all over the world in order to cover up the corruption within those very nations that built those walls.
> 
> Look, all that is needed is to enforce the laws here, take away the drugs incentives from the traffickers and dealers, seriously crack down on employers through audits, stiff fines and jail time, and go after slum lords who are providing shelter to illegals that is more than likely being subsidized through government housing subsidies etc.
> 
> Dry up the incentives, and dry up the problem. It's just that simple.
> 
> The problem is that we have way too many Americans profiting from the illegals, trafficking, and every other bad that goes along with the problem.
> 
> Yes, border security is essential, and listening to the people who know best (the border patrol), is also essential on securing the border.
> 
> Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to the border patrol when they enforce the border, and then the country is undermining their efforts as soon as they attempt to do the right thing ??  It's no different than undermining the law enforcement in high crime areas, where the law enforcement ends up backing off, and then throwing their hands in the air.... It's the same undermining taking place, and usually it's the do gooder liberals that are the culprits, but then they're are others doing it for profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already against the law for employers to hire illegals, so your proposed solution obviously does't work.  You see, you solution depends on Democrat bureaucrats and politicians to do their jobs, and that is never going to happen.  The wall doesn't depend that.
> 
> The border patrol supports the wall.  Why don't you listen to them?
Click to expand...

. Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, enforcement... If no enforcement, then the wall will just be an obstruction to the viewing of the beautiful countryside.


----------



## Humorme

Crixus said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
Click to expand...


Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.


----------



## Humorme

Crixus said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to add the people given amnesty to the yearly total, moron.  That's a one time deal.The wall will take care of 60% of the yearly total, and that's well worth it.  That will ensure we don't ever have to grant an amnesty again, which is precisely why youre against it.  You're just another open-borders douchebag.
> 
> Your fantasies about what the wall leads to are hilarious, to say the least.  Where has this ever happened?
> 
> There is a village somehere missing its idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
Click to expand...


Anyone who thinks undocumented foreigners don't have Rights is ignorant of grade school civics.  Besides, my argument is not about what Rights foreigners do or do not have. * READ* before you criticize.


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Walls have worked all over the world in order to cover up the corruption within those very nations that built those walls.
> 
> Look, all that is needed is to enforce the laws here, take away the drugs incentives from the traffickers and dealers, seriously crack down on employers through audits, stiff fines and jail time, and go after slum lords who are providing shelter to illegals that is more than likely being subsidized through government housing subsidies etc.
> 
> Dry up the incentives, and dry up the problem. It's just that simple.
> 
> The problem is that we have way too many Americans profiting from the illegals, trafficking, and every other bad that goes along with the problem.
> 
> Yes, border security is essential, and listening to the people who know best (the border patrol), is also essential on securing the border.
> 
> Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to the border patrol when they enforce the border, and then the country is undermining their efforts as soon as they attempt to do the right thing ??  It's no different than undermining the law enforcement in high crime areas, where the law enforcement ends up backing off, and then throwing their hands in the air.... It's the same undermining taking place, and usually it's the do gooder liberals that are the culprits, but then they're are others doing it for profit.
Click to expand...


You've pretty much answered your own question.  Undocumented foreigners are here as a result of the free market.  You want to live in a socialist shithole - so don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Walls have worked all over the world in order to cover up the corruption within those very nations that built those walls.
> 
> Look, all that is needed is to enforce the laws here, take away the drugs incentives from the traffickers and dealers, seriously crack down on employers through audits, stiff fines and jail time, and go after slum lords who are providing shelter to illegals that is more than likely being subsidized through government housing subsidies etc.
> 
> Dry up the incentives, and dry up the problem. It's just that simple.
> 
> The problem is that we have way too many Americans profiting from the illegals, trafficking, and every other bad that goes along with the problem.
> 
> Yes, border security is essential, and listening to the people who know best (the border patrol), is also essential on securing the border.
> 
> Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to the border patrol when they enforce the border, and then the country is undermining their efforts as soon as they attempt to do the right thing ??  It's no different than undermining the law enforcement in high crime areas, where the law enforcement ends up backing off, and then throwing their hands in the air.... It's the same undermining taking place, and usually it's the do gooder liberals that are the culprits, but then they're are others doing it for profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already against the law for employers to hire illegals, so your proposed solution obviously does't work.  You see, you solution depends on Democrat bureaucrats and politicians to do their jobs, and that is never going to happen.  The wall doesn't depend that.
> 
> The border patrol supports the wall.  Why don't you listen to them?
Click to expand...


Nobody is required to obey an unconstitutional act.  Jobs belong to the employer that created them.  We aren't living in Hitler's reconstituted socialist utopia just yet... so that slavish "_it's the law_" pretext will only carry you so far.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend $200 Billion a year fighting The Mexican Drug Cartels and Illegal Immigrants.
> 
> Build the damn wall and we actually save money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you believe in fake reality.
> 
> Because if you spend billions deporting every single undocumented but working family you not only have the costs of rounding up and deporting 13 million men women children to the other side of Trump's Great Hate Wall and supporting the 'already born here' orphans that you create, you also lose the economic gains to society plus the taxes they pay,
> 
> Building the HATE WALL will leave no cost savings impact on the millions already here. But it is supposedly the cost of that 13 million upon which the OP's $billions is based.
> 
> You have a very weak fake reality argument.
> 
> You should take it down. It is very stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rounding up the dreamers is a cost separate from the cost of building the wall.  You can't knock the wall based on what it actually costs, so you try to change the terms of the debate to the cost of deporting illegal aliens, which is a separate issue.
> 
> There are no economic gains to me from illegal aliens.  Only a few wealthy people benefit from having cheap servants.
Click to expand...


You do not understand the economics of your own country.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> You've pretty much answered your own question.  Undocumented foreigners are here as a result of the free market.  You want to live in a socialist shithole - so don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.


Illegals are here because most are nothing more than economic refugees, they can simply make more per hour, day, week, month, year, here than they can back home, all the while sending money back so that their family can be higher on the social ladder.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Nobody is required to obey an unconstitutional act.  Jobs belong to the employer that created them.  We aren't living in Hitler's reconstituted socialist utopia just yet... so that slavish "_it's the law_" pretext will only carry you so far.


If you believe the act is unconstitutional than take it to court, until then you are required to obey said law/act. Since you have yet to have done such, your ramblings amount to squat.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> You do not understand the economics of your own country.


You don't understand economics at all. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.


Walls/fences seem to work where ever they are implemented. SHRUG


----------



## beagle9

Humorme said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . You speak as if the Demon-crats won't ever be in power again...  To tackle the problem within this nation (that has truly caused this massive problem) is the best bet, and yes secure that border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
Click to expand...

. Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.


----------



## beagle9

Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.

Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.


----------



## Crixus

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
Click to expand...



Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?


----------



## beagle9

Crixus said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?
Click to expand...

. What kind of blabbering you got going on in your post ? I just said that Israel had a wall, but the wall is useless without the enforcement aspect of it all... We don't have the enforcement attitude here, and if we can't find that attitude, then a wall will be useless unless we think that it can somehow operate on it's own like a driverless car etc. The Jews have the right attitude, and the enforcement will.


----------



## Bush92

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Fuel and rounds for Apache attack helicopters even cheaper than that.


----------



## Crixus

beagle9 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . What kind of blabbering you got going on in your post ? I just said that Israel had a wall, but the wall is useless without the enforcement aspect of it all... We don't have the enforcement attitude here, and if we can't find that attitude, then a wall will be useless unless we think that it can somehow operate on it's own like a driverless cars etc.
Click to expand...



I know. It’s thenpot. Honestly, if we would just let the guys and gals who take care of this do their jobs with the laws we have now we would probably be good with just fixing up what we have now.


----------



## JQPublic1

beagle9 said:


> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.


You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?


----------



## JQPublic1

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've pretty much answered your own question.  Undocumented foreigners are here as a result of the free market.  You want to live in a socialist shithole - so don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are here because most are nothing more than economic refugees, they can simply make more per hour, day, week, month, year, here than they can back home, all the while sending money back so that their family can be higher on the social ladder.
Click to expand...

So why do our " patriotic" employers hire illegals? Obviously they have no sense of loyalty to the native American labor force.
One answer to that question is quite sobering.
Cheap labor is essential to keeping food prices low. We have addressed that reality by issuing seasonal work visas to migrants looking to pick fruit and work the farms.
At least there is some measure of control there...


----------



## Liquid Reigns

JQPublic1 said:


> So why do our " patriotic" employers hire illegals? Obviously they have no sense of loyalty to the native American labor force.
> One answer to that question is quite sobering.
> Cheap labor is essential to keeping food prices low. We have addressed that reality by issuing seasonal work visas to migrants looking to pick fruit and work the farms.
> At least there is some measure of control there...


When an illegal worker gives the employer the required I-9 documentation, how is the employer suppose to know the illegal is actually illegal? 

Cheap labor is not essential to keeping food prices low, the increase cost of gasoline has a greater impact on the cost of your food then does field labor. 

The H2A should be used much more.


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
Click to expand...


Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.

The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.

Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.


----------



## Humorme

Crixus said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?
Click to expand...


I'd say God likes Mexicans better than Jews, but that's beside the point.  How much "wall" do the Israelis have compared to what you're proposing?

How many Rights will the cost... the Fourth Amendment falling by the wayside along with private property Rights being axed are just for starters.


----------



## Humorme

JQPublic1 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've pretty much answered your own question.  Undocumented foreigners are here as a result of the free market.  You want to live in a socialist shithole - so don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are here because most are nothing more than economic refugees, they can simply make more per hour, day, week, month, year, here than they can back home, all the while sending money back so that their family can be higher on the social ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do our " patriotic" employers hire illegals? Obviously they have no sense of loyalty to the native American labor force.
> One answer to that question is quite sobering.
> Cheap labor is essential to keeping food prices low. We have addressed that reality by issuing seasonal work visas to migrants looking to pick fruit and work the farms.
> At least there is some measure of control there...
Click to expand...


I've responded to this in hundreds of threads on this board.  Let me make this clear to you:

*NO* American employer owes any of you a job.  The greatest hallmark of our constitutional Republic is that of *private property Rights.  *You can pass all the laws you like, but just as a singer owns the words they commit to paper when they write a song, the employer owns the job he / she creates.  It's not yours to force employers to hire you for.

Once the employer does hire those you find objectionable, you have every RIGHT to *boycott *that business.  NOBODY is twisting your arm and telling you to buy from Walmart.  Walmart was convicted of hiring contractors that hire undocumented foreigners.  So, if we use your analogy, YOU KNEW - or, at the least had a duty to know that Walmart used undocumented foreigners.  So, if those foreigners "_stole_" your jobs, then you are guilty of receiving stolen property when you shop there.  How far do you want to try and invoke unconstitutional laws when the solution is simple:

Let the free market work.  You can shop at places that only hire Americans.  Be responsible for yourself.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.


John Winthrop preached in a _1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity" preached by Puritan John Winthrop while still aboard the ship Arbella. Winthrop admonished the future Massachusetts Bay colonists that their new community would be "as a city upon a hill", watched by the world—which became the ideal that the New England colonists placed upon their hilly capital city of Boston.[1] The Puritans' community in New England would set an example of communal charity, affection, and unity to the world or, if the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant of God, "we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world" of God's judgment._ The sermon doesn't refer to the now US as being the New Jerusalem, it only refers to the Puritans colony as being a leading example of _communal charity, affection, and unity to the world.
_
Those who try to re-write our history, /\/\/\/\/\, are the ones attempting to destroy our country. What liberties have you lost from immigration law, and how does  the border wall effect you?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> I'd say God likes Mexicans better than Jews, but that's beside the point.  How much "wall" do the Israelis have compared to what you're proposing?
> 
> How many Rights will the cost... the Fourth Amendment falling by the wayside along with private property Rights being axed are just for starters.


What rights as a US Citizen have you lost due to immigration law? Short answer = NONE. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> I've responded to this in hundreds of threads on this board.  Let me make this clear to you:
> 
> *NO* American employer owes any of you a job.  The greatest hallmark of our constitutional Republic is that of *private property Rights.  *You can pass all the laws you like, but just as a singer owns the words they commit to paper when they write a song, the employer owns the job he / she creates.  It's not yours to force employers to hire you for.
> 
> Once the employer does hire those you find objectionable, you have every RIGHT to *boycott *that business.  NOBODY is twisting your arm and telling you to buy from Walmart.  Walmart was convicted of hiring contractors that hire undocumented foreigners.  So, if we use your analogy, YOU KNEW - or, at the least had a duty to know that Walmart used undocumented foreigners.  So, if those foreigners "_stole_" your jobs, then you are guilty of receiving stolen property when you shop there.  How far do you want to try and invoke unconstitutional laws when the solution is simple:
> 
> Let the free market work.  You can shop at places that only hire Americans.  Be responsible for yourself.


And yet society limits whom the employer can hire, otherwise we would see sweatshops with 6 y.o. kids working their fingers to the bone. 

Walmart was never convicted of hiring contractors that hire illegals. You claiming laws are unconstitutional, yet you have done nothing to challenge them in court to get them overturned.


----------



## beagle9

JQPublic1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
Click to expand...

. Not sure, but it sounded like it was mostly illegals by the way the border was included in the story as a means to stop the problem.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . What kind of blabbering you got going on in your post ? I just said that Israel had a wall, but the wall is useless without the enforcement aspect of it all... We don't have the enforcement attitude here, and if we can't find that attitude, then a wall will be useless unless we think that it can somehow operate on it's own like a driverless car etc. The Jews have the right attitude, and the enforcement will.
Click to expand...


The wall doesn't require any more of an "enforcement attitude" then we have now.  all it requires is for current border gaurds to man it and apprehend anyone trying to get around it.  On the other hand, all the proposed bogus alternatives to  wall require an administration that is actually enterested in securing the border.  Hence, they are no starters.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.

The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
Click to expand...


Chain migration.  That's going to end.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say God likes Mexicans better than Jews, but that's beside the point.  How much "wall" do the Israelis have compared to what you're proposing?
> 
> How many Rights will the cost... the Fourth Amendment falling by the wayside along with private property Rights being axed are just for starters.
Click to expand...

How are the 4th Amendment and property rights going to be affected by the wall?


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.

The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.  

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

bripat9643, post: 19164353 





bripat9643 said:


> You can't knock the wall based on what it actually costs, so you try to change the terms of the debate to the cost of deporting illegal aliens, which is a separate issue.



I certainly can and have knocked Trump's Great Hate Wall even if Mexico would pay for the stupid thing. It's your inability to respond to the reality I've presented you about how even more insane it is to brutally deport every last Dreamer as you wish the Koch Bros and Trumpo would do. 



> .
> “Immigrants are essential to the success of our country and addressing the plight of the dreamers is a top priority for this network," Brian Hooks, a senior official with the Koch organization, said in a statement. "We are committed to working with Congress and the White House to find a solution that does this without arbitrarily reducing the number of people who come here to contribute."
> 
> A statement from the group -- the most influential conservative organization outside the Republican Party -- was issued as hundreds of donors and potential donors gathered for a weekend summit at a desert resort near Palm Springs, California.



Koch Network Warns Trump Against ‘Arbitrary’ Immigration Cuts


What can you do now? Suggestion: be a graceful loser as reality bites you in the ass.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> When did seizing property ever bother Democrats? The EPA does it all the time, and without compensation.



Yes, but usually for good reason... 

No good reason to steal someone's land for a wall that won't work.


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> That's all been shown to be bullshit. Walls work everywhere they've been tried. That's the fact that you can't get around.
> 
> And you did say that Democrats would demolish the wall after it was built. You're a fucking traitor.



Yeah, you see, I believe in THIS should be the face of America. 






Not THIS


----------



## Crixus

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character een Israel. However, without
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here




So does Mexico. That’s why they are here/ I say tax 2/3ds of the money wet backs send home. That will pay for a chunk of the wall. Likely the yearly  maintenance to.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone oppose chain migration?


----------



## rightwinger

Crixus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does Mexico. That’s why they are here/ I say tax 2/3ds of the money wet backs send home. That will pay for a chunk of the wall. Likely the yearly  maintenance to.
Click to expand...


Why not offer temporary work visas and tax their income directly?


----------



## Meathead

rightwinger said:


> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?


I'm not completely opposed to chain migration. It should be like Affirmative Action, whereas all things being equal in a set of uniform requirements which would include education, language, employability and security concerns, people with close relatives can be given priority


----------



## Crixus

rightwinger said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does Mexico. That’s why they are here/ I say tax 2/3ds of the money wet backs send home. That will pay for a chunk of the wall. Likely the yearly  maintenance to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not offer temporary work visas and tax their income directly?
Click to expand...



Why not do both? The reason you hit the money they send back home and hit it hard is so the illegals pay their fair share and most of the money made here stays here.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day the political pendulum will swing left.  The Dems will be in power.  Courts can still rule and modify any of this.
> 
> Once a person is in this country they can sponsor relatives as citizens.  They can also invite family in as guests.  Those guests then can become pregnant and this whole process starts over again.
> 
> The nutty wall does not resolve the fact that the* illegally ratified *14th Amendment makes citizens out of the relatives of non-citizens.  It does not matter that these people do not automatically become citizens.
> 
> What is factual is that the people will be here regardless of the wall, citizenship, etc.  So, my point is, let them be here, but don't think you have to make presence in a country equal citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Walls have worked all over the world in order to cover up the corruption within those very nations that built those walls.
> 
> Look, all that is needed is to enforce the laws here, take away the drugs incentives from the traffickers and dealers, seriously crack down on employers through audits, stiff fines and jail time, and go after slum lords who are providing shelter to illegals that is more than likely being subsidized through government housing subsidies etc.
> 
> Dry up the incentives, and dry up the problem. It's just that simple.
> 
> The problem is that we have way too many Americans profiting from the illegals, trafficking, and every other bad that goes along with the problem.
> 
> Yes, border security is essential, and listening to the people who know best (the border patrol), is also essential on securing the border.
> 
> Can you imagine how frustrating it must be to the border patrol when they enforce the border, and then the country is undermining their efforts as soon as they attempt to do the right thing ??  It's no different than undermining the law enforcement in high crime areas, where the law enforcement ends up backing off, and then throwing their hands in the air.... It's the same undermining taking place, and usually it's the do gooder liberals that are the culprits, but then they're are others doing it for profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already against the law for employers to hire illegals, so your proposed solution obviously does't work.  You see, you solution depends on Democrat bureaucrats and politicians to do their jobs, and that is never going to happen.  The wall doesn't depend that.
> 
> The border patrol supports the wall.  Why don't you listen to them?
Click to expand...

It is their job.  The left supports our Commerce Clause since we don't have a nanny-State clause.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
Click to expand...


The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.  

We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.

You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Way out of context, but you do know some Jews over there got a wall that works now right? Is it because Gawdah, is on there side? You think God likes mexicans more then Jews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say God likes Mexicans better than Jews, but that's beside the point.  How much "wall" do the Israelis have compared to what you're proposing?
> 
> How many Rights will the cost... the Fourth Amendment falling by the wayside along with private property Rights being axed are just for starters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are the 4th Amendment and property rights going to be affected by the wall?
Click to expand...


They already are.  There is the *Constitution Free Zone*.

The United States Constitutional Free-Zone

66 Percent of Americans Now Live in a Constitution-Free Zone

Let's take this a step further and talk about the *future*.  The anti-immigrant lobby maintains that coming into the United States is a crime.  It is a false claim as coming into the United States without papers is a civil *misdemeanor*.  It is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn.  But, let's not argue with people with low IQs.  Let us say this is about crime control.

Having a wall means that they will use armed drones and ninja clad federal mercenaries to enforce the wall.  If you have property along that area where the wall is, you lose your property Rights so that the wall can be protected.  How far will that protection zone extend?  Most likely  it will extend within the Constitution Free Zone, taking away over half of ALL Americans property Rights AND subjecting them to surveillance technology that eviscerates any Right to privacy they ever had.

Well now, the anti immigrant lobby, having NO use for the Constitution, doesn't understand the way the Constitution is applied.  So, they call undocumented foreigners _"illegal aliens_" before the people have ever been arrested (much less found guilty of a crime.)  So there goes the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.  But, it don't end there.

Since they are alleging crimes and crime control (as opposed to phrasing their issue as - let us say a National Security one)  they forget that the 14th Amendment mandates the _equal protection of the laws_.

Soooo... if we can ignore the Rights of over half of the population within the Constitution Free Zone, you can write off the balance of America since the feds will use those high tech resources to spy on you under the guise of monitoring for criminals.  Armed drones, federal mercenaries monitoring you 24 / 7, warrant less searches - all under the pretext of looking for criminals????  No thanks.  Oh, it's worse, but I doubt that if what I said isn't enough, you will trivialize the rest too.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
Click to expand...


If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Crixus

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...



Does VIP mean you paied for this account Joe?


----------



## Crixus

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...



The case is made. America voted. Deal with that. Or don’t.


----------



## JQPublic1

Liquid Reigns said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do our " patriotic" employers hire illegals? Obviously they have no sense of loyalty to the native American labor force.
> One answer to that question is quite sobering.
> Cheap labor is essential to keeping food prices low. We have addressed that reality by issuing seasonal work visas to migrants looking to pick fruit and work the farms.
> At least there is some measure of control there...
> 
> 
> 
> When an illegal worker gives the employer the required I-9 documentation, how is the employer suppose to know the illegal is actually illegal?
> 
> Cheap labor is not essential to keeping food prices low, the increase cost of gasoline has a greater impact on the cost of your food then does field labor.
> 
> The H2A should be used much more.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the I-9 documentation is accompanied by real or fake documents such as birth certificates or social security cards. In the latter case, once the data is sent to the IRS a "non match" warning is sent back to the employer who then is alerted to the possibility of the credentials being fake. At that moment, if no action is taken by the employer to rectify the discovery, everything I said aboutthat employer's loyalty to the American labor force Is true.

Cheap labor is a compelling reason to hire illegal immigrants. This link may cause you to adjust your opinion:

At least half of all farmworkers in the United States are undocumented Mexican immigrants. And “documentation” often dictates inclusion in a guest-worker program that’s been compared to slavery. Americans avoid these jobs, yet elected a president who promised mass deportation. There’s a crisis brewing in our fields, and it’s about to get much, much worse. More...


----------



## danielpalos

All foreign nationals should have a federal id.


----------



## Crixus

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.
> 
> We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.
> 
> You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.
Click to expand...




War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> All foreign nationals should have a federal id.


They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

JQPublic1 said:


> If I remember correctly, the I-9 documentation is accompanied by real or fake documents such as birth certificates or social security cards. In the latter case, once the data is sent to the IRS a "non match" warning is sent back to the employer who then is alerted to the possibility of the credentials being fake. At that moment, if no action is taken by the employer to rectify the discovery, everything I said about that employer's loyalty to the American labor force Is true.


What you stated is only true if the employer does nothing with the no match letter.  



JQPublic1 said:


> Cheap labor is a compelling reason to hire illegal immigrants. This link may cause you to adjust your opinion:
> 
> At least half of all farmworkers in the United States are undocumented Mexican immigrants. And “documentation” often dictates inclusion in a guest-worker program that’s been compared to slavery. Americans avoid these jobs, yet elected a president who promised mass deportation. There’s a crisis brewing in our fields, and it’s about to get much, much worse. More...


Your showing things that are already well known, less than half of field labor is done via illegals, that means that over half are legally here, i.e. citizens, LPR, and non-immigrant visas (H2A). The H2A isn't compared to slavery, the farmer has requirements in order to use the H2A, and the states have farm labor requirements such as minimum pay and overtime mandates.  Many Americans avoid farm labor as it is both hard work and short term usually weeks only, and migrating with the work is usually required. Most Americans have both homes and families and do not migrate for short term work. Deporting illegals that work the fields will force farmers to use the H2A as they should have been doing from the get go. SHRUG


----------



## JQPublic1

Humorme said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've pretty much answered your own question.  Undocumented foreigners are here as a result of the free market.  You want to live in a socialist shithole - so don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are here because most are nothing more than economic refugees, they can simply make more per hour, day, week, month, year, here than they can back home, all the while sending money back so that their family can be higher on the social ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do our " patriotic" employers hire illegals? Obviously they have no sense of loyalty to the native American labor force.
> One answer to that question is quite sobering.
> Cheap labor is essential to keeping food prices low. We have addressed that reality by issuing seasonal work visas to migrants looking to pick fruit and work the farms.
> At least there is some measure of control there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've responded to this in hundreds of threads on this board.  Let me make this clear to you:
> 
> *NO* American employer owes any of you a job.  The greatest hallmark of our constitutional Republic is that of *private property Rights.  *You can pass all the laws you like, but just as a singer owns the words they commit to paper when they write a song, the employer owns the job he / she creates.  It's not yours to force employers to hire you for.
> 
> Once the employer does hire those you find objectionable, you have every RIGHT to *boycott *that business.  NOBODY is twisting your arm and telling you to buy from Walmart.  Walmart was convicted of hiring contractors that hire undocumented foreigners.  So, if we use your analogy, YOU KNEW - or, at the least had a duty to know that Walmart used undocumented foreigners.  So, if those foreigners "_stole_" your jobs, then you are guilty of receiving stolen property when you shop there.  How far do you want to try and invoke unconstitutional laws when the solution is simple:
> 
> Let the free market work.  You can shop at places that only hire Americans.  Be responsible for yourself.
Click to expand...

This issue is far grander than mere job stealing.  Knowingly harboring illegals is a crime.  In the case of Walmart, if I knew that illegal immigrants were harbored there and were taking jobs away from Americans I would feel duty-bound to call immigration authorities. But if you say Walmart has already been convicted in certain areas, that point is moot. The question now is just how much attention are the immigration authorities paying to known criminal conduct of Walmart and what are they doing about it?
But let's get one thing straight. There's a difference between fruit Pickers and illegals working at Walmart. Walmart is a far more desirable place to work because it's an inside job. It beats slaving  out in the fields  any day and. any time of year. That is the crucial distinction. And i wouldn't be so quick to boycott Walmart because I do think most of the people working there are American citizens.


----------



## DrLove

More unadulterated BS

Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org


----------



## Humorme

Crixus said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> 
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The case is made. America voted. Deal with that. Or don’t.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the last polling numbers last night on tv said 63 percent of the American people don't want a wall.  I can deal with that.  Can you?


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.
Click to expand...

Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?


----------



## Humorme

JQPublic1 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've pretty much answered your own question.  Undocumented foreigners are here as a result of the free market.  You want to live in a socialist shithole - so don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals are here because most are nothing more than economic refugees, they can simply make more per hour, day, week, month, year, here than they can back home, all the while sending money back so that their family can be higher on the social ladder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do our " patriotic" employers hire illegals? Obviously they have no sense of loyalty to the native American labor force.
> One answer to that question is quite sobering.
> Cheap labor is essential to keeping food prices low. We have addressed that reality by issuing seasonal work visas to migrants looking to pick fruit and work the farms.
> At least there is some measure of control there...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've responded to this in hundreds of threads on this board.  Let me make this clear to you:
> 
> *NO* American employer owes any of you a job.  The greatest hallmark of our constitutional Republic is that of *private property Rights.  *You can pass all the laws you like, but just as a singer owns the words they commit to paper when they write a song, the employer owns the job he / she creates.  It's not yours to force employers to hire you for.
> 
> Once the employer does hire those you find objectionable, you have every RIGHT to *boycott *that business.  NOBODY is twisting your arm and telling you to buy from Walmart.  Walmart was convicted of hiring contractors that hire undocumented foreigners.  So, if we use your analogy, YOU KNEW - or, at the least had a duty to know that Walmart used undocumented foreigners.  So, if those foreigners "_stole_" your jobs, then you are guilty of receiving stolen property when you shop there.  How far do you want to try and invoke unconstitutional laws when the solution is simple:
> 
> Let the free market work.  You can shop at places that only hire Americans.  Be responsible for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This issue is far grander than mere job stealing.  Knowingly harboring illegals is a crime.  In the case of Walmart, if I knew that illegal immigrants were harbored there and were taking jobs away from Americans I would feel duty-bound to call immigration authorities. But if you say Walmart has already been convicted in certain areas, that point is moot. The question now is just how much attention are the immigration authorities paying to known criminal conduct of Walmart and what are they doing about it?
> But let's get one thing straight. There's a difference between fruit Pickers and illegals working at Walmart. Walmart is a far more desirable place to work because it's an inside job. It beats slaving  out in the fields  any day and. any time of year. That is the crucial distinction. And i wouldn't be so quick to boycott Walmart because I do think most of the people working there are American citizens.
Click to expand...


Great deflection and a way to let some employers ignore the law while others can't.  Pick on the poor arse farmer whose profit for the year doesn't equal the profit of a single Walmart store.

All these laws you're talking about are patently unconstitutional.  Otherwise a majority of Americans would obey the law.  You can pass all the laws you want.  When it restricts Liberty, it will be ignored by the bulk of the American people.


----------



## Humorme

DrLove said:


> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org



So, do think it's B.S. because the facts do not support anti-immigrant claims OR because FAIR and CIS are bankrolled by a guy who believes in eugenics?


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
Click to expand...


Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier? 

I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.


----------



## danielpalos

It should be illegal for foreign nationals in the US to not have a federal ID.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did seizing property ever bother Democrats? The EPA does it all the time, and without compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but usually for good reason...
> 
> No good reason to steal someone's land for a wall that won't work.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's not a 5th Amendment issue.

You're a dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.


----------



## bripat9643

DrLove said:


> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org



Factcheck.org is fake news.


----------



## DrLove

bripat9643 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
Click to expand...


Yer a funny little feller 

It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg


----------



## danielpalos

DrLove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
Click to expand...

It is a fallacy of false Cause, with our Commerce Clause.


----------



## JQPublic1

DrLove said:


> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org


Thanks for the link. It's one of thr most comprehensive rebuttals of RW nonesense I've seen.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
Click to expand...

Almost everything you say is fake news.
So...STFU.


----------



## bripat9643

DrLove said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
Click to expand...


ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.  

You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Almost everything you say is fake news.
> So...STFU.
Click to expand...


That's funny coming from a congenital dumbass like you.


----------



## danielpalos

We don't need a wall; we need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.  Who cares if lousy capitalists making it on low wage labor, fail.  We need better capitalists who can make like Henry Ford, not whiners who complain about taxes.


----------



## JQPublic1

Liquid Reigns said:


> Your showing things that are already well known, less than half of field labor is done via illegals,



The link says more than half of field labor is done byu undocumented workers.



Liquid Reigns said:


> that means that over half are legally here, i.e. citizens, LPR, and non-immigrant visas (H2A). The H2A isn't compared to slavery,



You didn't read the link, did you? At least half of field workers are undocumented ...that means what it says. And the linked narrative
made the comparison to slavery. Why do you dispute it?



Liquid Reigns said:


> Deporting illegals that work the fields will force farmers to use the H2A as they should have been doing from the get go. SHRUG


 is that a fact or a hunch?
There doesn't seem to be an endless supply of people wanting to come here to just to work the fields. And those deported, ostensibly, would be ineligible for H2A status. Also with minimum wages rising steadily...many farmers may allow fields to go fallow if forced to use H2A .


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?
Click to expand...

If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Great deflection and a way to let some employers ignore the law while others can't.  Pick on the poor arse farmer whose profit for the year doesn't equal the profit of a single Walmart store.
> 
> All these laws you're talking about are patently unconstitutional.  Otherwise a majority of Americans would obey the law.  You can pass all the laws you want.  When it restricts Liberty, it will be ignored by the bulk of the American people.


And yet they aren't unconstitutional as you claim. gofigure


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> It should be illegal for foreign nationals in the US to not have a federal ID.


It is illegal for foreign nationals in the US to not have an I-94, that is why they are being found and removed. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

JQPublic1 said:


> The link says more than half of field labor is done byu undocumented workers.


No your link says _at least half_, which means they really can't say more then half. SHRUG



JQPublic1 said:


> You didn't read the link, did you? At least half of field workers are undocumented ...that means what it says. And the linked narrative
> made the comparison to slavery. Why do you dispute it?


Yes I read the link, why do you think they didn't say more then half? They can compare it to whatever they want, doesn't make it factual, merely hyperbolic opinion. SHRUG



JQPublic1 said:


> is that a fact or a hunch?
> There doesn't seem to be an endless supply of people wanting to come here to just to work the fields. And those deported, ostensibly, would be ineligible for H2A status. Also with minimum wages rising steadily...many farmers may allow fields to go fallow if forced to use H2A .


Many farmers may also mechanize, or plant less labor intensive crops, see there is more then one way to skin a cat.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG
Click to expand...

How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.
Click to expand...

The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.

Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.
> 
> Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.
Click to expand...

it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?

Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
Click to expand...


Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
Click to expand...

not everyone who applies is automatically accepted for citizenship.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> They, if they entered the US legally, would have an I-94 form.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.
> 
> Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?
> 
> Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.
Click to expand...

Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?


----------



## danielpalos

why become a citizen if you can be tourist for as long as you want?


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> 
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.
Click to expand...


The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger.  I'm more right of center than you are.  So, there is your first problem.  The Bible puts it this way:

"_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13

You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are.  The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat.  The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists.  BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter.  His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all.  And Tanton is pro-eugenics.

So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists.  Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today.  But, it was *YOUR SIDE* that brought us tyranny on the installment plan.  *YOUR SIDE* took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle.  And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.

Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are all foreign nationals in the US, not getting a federal id, if they are already in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.
> 
> Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?
> 
> Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?
Click to expand...

it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.

illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not everyone who applies is automatically accepted for citizenship.
Click to expand...


You miss the point.  Not everyone should have to apply just to be here.  Neither should we allow the government to extend the privileges / immunities / benefits of citizenship to non-citizens.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't enter via a port of entry to get their federal I-94 then those who entered improperly aren't entitled to one and need to be removed from this country. SHRUG
> 
> 
> 
> How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.
> 
> Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?
> 
> Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
Click to expand...

Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG

The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not everyone who applies is automatically accepted for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  Not everyone should have to apply just to be here.  Neither should we allow the government to extend the privileges / immunities / benefits of citizenship to non-citizens.
Click to expand...

Every foreign national in the US should have a federal id. 

Fines and fees can offer market based metrics.

The right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to applied capitalism, at every opportunity.


----------



## DrLove

JQPublic1 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. It's one of thr most comprehensive rebuttals of RW nonesense I've seen.
Click to expand...


Not hard to debunk a Trumpling - it's all a matter of straight up search term, or one that gives you the results you were looking for. You know, BriteFart, Infowars, TruePundit, DailyCaller, etc etc etc.

They are quite transparent, and I also suspect that we have Russian trolls in our midst!


----------



## Siete

*Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion;*

wall? what wall? I dont see any wall.  

and neither will YOU.

SUCKERS.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona is in need of heavier enforcement including an upgraded barrier/wall/fence from what I heard.  My family member told me that she has a friend living in Arizona near the border, and she said her friend when moved there purchased a home in a very good neighborhood, but after the Mexicans started flooding in she had to put bars on her windows and doors, and video cams on the premises.  She said they have gangs now, and she is stuck in a situation that she can't get out of due her elderly age now.  Her property has devalued so badly, that she has lost just about all of her investments in the community over the years.
> 
> Now this bullcrap had a starting point, and it has had enablers, and it has a way to aquire an assessment of the damages to be evaluated by the right people, but all this is being ignored by political advocates of open borders, and people with a dam anti-American agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
Click to expand...


Trump is already working on it, and I support him.


----------



## rightwinger

Crixus said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does Mexico. That’s why they are here/ I say tax 2/3ds of the money wet backs send home. That will pay for a chunk of the wall. Likely the yearly  maintenance to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not offer temporary work visas and tax their income directly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not do both? The reason you hit the money they send back home and hit it hard is so the illegals pay their fair share and most of the money made here stays here.
Click to expand...

If you issue a temporary work visa they are paying their fair share
Everything is on the books


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger.  I'm more right of center than you are.  So, there is your first problem.  The Bible puts it this way:
> 
> "_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13
> 
> You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are.  The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat.  The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists.  BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter.  His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all.  And Tanton is pro-eugenics.
> 
> So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists.  Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today.  But, it was *YOUR SIDE* that brought us tyranny on the installment plan.  *YOUR SIDE* took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle.  And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.
> 
> Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.
Click to expand...

Please spare me.  You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am.  There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick. 

Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis.  That's your conception of logic.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
Click to expand...


You're Canadian, how can you support Trumpchange?


----------



## dblack

OnePercenter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're Canadian, how can you support Trumpchange?
Click to expand...


Bri is a Canadian? He must be REALLY scared of Mexicans!


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall keeps people out who shouldn't be here so they can't ever get amnesty and they can't ever have an anchor baby. If pregnant women can't get here, then the problem with the 14th Amendment doesn't matter that much.  If we change the law regarding chain migration, then the rest of the problems you list will go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
Click to expand...

. Didn't these empires fall from within ??  So how does a wall protect you from yourself ?? 

Answer that one, and we will be making progress. A Nation has to have the right enforcement attitude, and not be undermined by the open border attitudes, but we as a nation also have to be fiscally responsible when making hopefully the right judgements.  Laws and the enforcement of those laws, are far far more powerful than walls will ever be

Admit it, you are so partisan that you can't rationally think this thing through. You forget about what has brought us to the place we are all at, and you forget that those people who have caused it all still have alot of power, so why just place your head in the sand ??  Why do something in which they can, and will have extreme criticism over if we are wrong in our knee jerk reaction to the entire problem ??

I think the right things will be said during the state of the union address. Let's hope.


----------



## beagle9

Crixus said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.
> 
> We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.
> 
> You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.
Click to expand...

. Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.

It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.


----------



## JQPublic1

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much does that cost?  We have a Commerce Clause.  Illegals should be paying a fine for entering illegally, and pay the usual fee for a federal id for foreigners in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.
> 
> Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?
> 
> Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG
> 
> The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH
Click to expand...

There has been considerable fact checking
showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> The I-94 doesn't cost anything, it is an arrival and departure record that the foreign national is to keep on their person at all times while here along with their passport.
> 
> Improper Entry does have a fine, along with a criminal record and jail sentence, all before being removed.
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?
> 
> Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG
> 
> The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been considerable fact checking
> showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.
> 
> FactCheck.org
Click to expand...


I've already exposed your link as fake news.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't work; Any recidivism is proof of that.  why waste good money on bad, right wingers?
> 
> Id them, fine them if here illegally, have them pay the fee for a regular id with current information, and let them continue pursuing Happiness in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG
> 
> The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been considerable fact checking
> showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.
> 
> FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already exposed your link as fake news.
Click to expand...

The only thing you've exposed is your uncanny ability to spew BS. Then, when called on it you shout "fake news."


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal border crossing has been reduced due to jailing them, we now have less recidivism by them. They are being ID'ed for removal, fined and jailed. They have ID, their countries ID card or they can go to their embassy here and get ID from their country of origin. Whats wrong with them pursuing happiness in their home nation?
> 
> 
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG
> 
> The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been considerable fact checking
> showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.
> 
> FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already exposed your link as fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing you've exposed is your uncanny ability to spew BS. Then, when called on it you shout "fake news."
Click to expand...

I call fake news "fake news."  So-called "Factcheck" sites were all conceived by leftwing propaganda mills that have lost all credibility with the public.  Their output has been examined and been found to be decidedly biased against Republicans and in favor of Democrats.   Only fools and douchebags continue to place any faith in them.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.
Click to expand...

You'd have to prove the author of the article is
Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to prove the author of the article is
> Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.
Click to expand...


Actually they do because leftists are notorious for being liars.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG
> 
> The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been considerable fact checking
> showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.
> 
> FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already exposed your link as fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing you've exposed is your uncanny ability to spew BS. Then, when called on it you shout "fake news."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call fake news "fake news."  So-called "Factcheck" sites were all conceived by leftwing propaganda mills that have lost all credibility with the public.  Their output has been examined and been found to be decidedly biased against Republicans and in favor of Democrats.   Only fools and douchebags continue to place any faith in them.
Click to expand...

And who conducted that examination, Fox noise? You? Heh heh heh...


----------



## OnePercenter

dblack said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're Canadian, how can you support Trumpchange?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bri is a Canadian? He must be REALLY scared of Mexicans!
Click to expand...


He's one of the numerous paid Canadian posters on the USMB.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it still costs money; we need a better energy grid, not a wall.
> 
> illegal immigration cannot be very important, because we can lower taxes like usual and customary, for real times of Commerce, not real times of urgency.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything costs money, its cheaper to keep them out verse paying for them to be here since they can't cover their own costs. SHRUG
> 
> The tax bill has nothing to do with immigration. Sorry, your strawman hyperbole is just that, now go burn him down. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There has been considerable fact checking
> showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.
> 
> FactCheck.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already exposed your link as fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing you've exposed is your uncanny ability to spew BS. Then, when called on it you shout "fake news."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call fake news "fake news."  So-called "Factcheck" sites were all conceived by leftwing propaganda mills that have lost all credibility with the public.  Their output has been examined and been found to be decidedly biased against Republicans and in favor of Democrats.   Only fools and douchebags continue to place any faith in them.
Click to expand...

Yeah...and Trump is the paragon of truth...right? You are one sick delusional bahs-turd. And to think there are more like you walking around with programmed minds that refuse to accept anything but RW propaganda as fact. You zombies are a waste of time...


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> More unadulterated BS
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to prove the author of the article is
> Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they do because leftists are notorious for being liars.
Click to expand...

BWHAHAHAHAH! And you support the most visible proven lying machine on earth and beyond...Donald Trump.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Factcheck.org is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to prove the author of the article is
> Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they do because leftists are notorious for being liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BWHAHAHAHAH! And you support the most visible proven lying machine on earth and beyond...Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Personal attacks are about the only arrow you have in your quiver.


----------



## JQPublic1

bripat9643 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yer a funny little feller
> 
> It is the brainchild of billionaire conservative Walter Annenberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to prove the author of the article is
> Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they do because leftists are notorious for being liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BWHAHAHAHAH! And you support the most visible proven lying machine on earth and beyond...Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal attacks are about the only arrow you have in your quiver.
Click to expand...


WTF? You start a fire, get burned and then scream at me for pissing on you to douse the flames consuming your sorry ass.


----------



## bripat9643

JQPublic1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Walter Annenberg is a hardcore leftwinger.  He funds all those pinko propaganda programs on PBS.  Obama and Bill Ayers both served on the board of an Annenberg charity together.  The claim that he's a conservative doesn't pass the laugh test.
> 
> You just proved that FactCheck.org is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to prove the author of the article is
> Wrong. Political inclinations have no bearing on being factual....unless you're a pathological liar like Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually they do because leftists are notorious for being liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BWHAHAHAHAH! And you support the most visible proven lying machine on earth and beyond...Donald Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal attacks are about the only arrow you have in your quiver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF? You start a fire, get burned and then scream at me for pissing on you to douse the flames consuming your sorry ass.
Click to expand...

I got burned?  That's news to me.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

JQPublic1 said:


> There has been considerable fact checking
> showing illegal immigrants are more than covering their own costs.


Wrong. Even the factcheck link doesn't make that claim.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not everyone who applies is automatically accepted for citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the point.  Not everyone should have to apply just to be here.  Neither should we allow the government to extend the privileges / immunities / benefits of citizenship to non-citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every foreign national in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> Fines and fees can offer market based metrics.
> 
> The right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis to applied capitalism, at every opportunity.
Click to expand...


Either way, both of you are going to the same destination


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume all the Mexicans flooding in are illegals. Are they? Could most be American citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
Click to expand...


Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger.  I'm more right of center than you are.  So, there is your first problem.  The Bible puts it this way:
> 
> "_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13
> 
> You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are.  The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat.  The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists.  BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter.  His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all.  And Tanton is pro-eugenics.
> 
> So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists.  Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today.  But, it was *YOUR SIDE* that brought us tyranny on the installment plan.  *YOUR SIDE* took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle.  And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.
> 
> Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please spare me.  You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am.  There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.
> 
> Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis.  That's your conception of logic.
Click to expand...


You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.

Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life.  And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you bitch about all the time.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chain migration.  That's going to end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
Click to expand...

How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger.  I'm more right of center than you are.  So, there is your first problem.  The Bible puts it this way:
> 
> "_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13
> 
> You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are.  The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat.  The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists.  BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter.  His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all.  And Tanton is pro-eugenics.
> 
> So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists.  Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today.  But, it was *YOUR SIDE* that brought us tyranny on the installment plan.  *YOUR SIDE* took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle.  And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.
> 
> Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please spare me.  You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am.  There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.
> 
> Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis.  That's your conception of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.
> 
> Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life.  And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you bitch about all the time.
Click to expand...


What "progress" are you referring to?


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone oppose chain migration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
Click to expand...


At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> 
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.
> 
> We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.
> 
> You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.
> 
> It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.
Click to expand...


Our situation don't have squat to do with any "_open borders crowd_.

From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they *ALL* favored  what you want to call open borders.  It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should anyone be for it?  Why should someone get an immigrant visa simply because he's the uncle of some other guy who migrated here earlier?
> 
> I'm against all migration unless we're talking about someone's wife or kids.  Otherwise, there's no reason for it.  Every immigrant takes an American job.  We don't need any more people here.  The country is full.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.
> 
> We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.
> 
> You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.
> 
> It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our situation don't have squat to do with any "_open borders crowd_.
> 
> From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they *ALL* favored  what you want to call open borders.  It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.
Click to expand...


Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You're dreaming.  As long as their are people from the third world here - *ESPECIALLY *with official sanction, their families will be allowed to come here
> 
> 2)  Your wall will not affect approximately 77 percent of the undocumented foreigners in this country
> 
> 3)  WHEN the walls fail, the technology and the manpower will be used against you
> 
> 4) For you to hide behind the 14th Amendment and then use disparaging words against children speaks volumes about your character much like the  poster who attacks the family of a fellow poster.  It's pretty much the same principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your false indignation is showing. DACA/ Dreamer wet backs and their families have ZERO leg to stand in legally. That they are even here is a testament to how awesome our country is as even in Mexico, if you are illegal you have no rights. Walls have worked all over the world all through history. If you look, they have all been built in the most amazing places. And you will also find that all through history, they worked. So the wall is a small price to pay for amnesty. If you don’t live in a border state, you really don’t have an opinion that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls only work in communist and totalitarian countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Interesting view point, because nation's that have tried or built walls in the olden times found that they really weren't that effective in the end.  What do you think Joshua would have thought of a wall ?? Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the Walls came a tumbling down.  I think the only place in modern times that have seen an effectiveness of a wall has been Israel. However, without the will to enforce the border, the wall would be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you want to bring up history, America is blind to their history.  It is my primary objection to the nutty wall idea.
> 
> The founders of this country believed America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible (that city without walls.)  Many a political speech has been made since 1630 and John Winthrop's City on a Hill sermon has been preached that reference that historic sermon.
> 
> Those who want to tamper with our history and our destiny are demanding something that will destroy our country.  Those who want the wall only see it in terms of the dollars it takes the build the wall.... not the costs of manning and defending it.  Worse, they are oblivious to the costs in terms of Liberties and Freedoms that will be forfeited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The wall isn't going to destroy America.  In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite.  the wall will prevent the USA from turning into Mexico.
> 
> The wall is a cheaper way to defend the border than simply hiring a lot of border gaurds.  All you open-borders douchebags know that.  The fact that the wall is cost effective is precisely why you object to it.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
Click to expand...



I'm not the one posting easily proven B.S. and telling people a shit sandwich is sirloin.  That honor would be left up to you.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then petition to reduce the number of people who can become citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  All the walls I'm aware of were highly effective.  The great wall was highly effective.  It kept barbarian nomads out of the country for centuries.  Hadrians wall was effective.  The wall around Rome was effective.  The wall Rome built on the border with Eastern Europe was effective.  Tell us which walls weren't effective.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> The claim that walls aren't effective is open-borders douchebag propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.
> 
> We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.
> 
> You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.
> 
> It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our situation don't have squat to do with any "_open borders crowd_.
> 
> From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they *ALL* favored  what you want to call open borders.  It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?
Click to expand...


Don't have to.  While *ALL* of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state.  They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.

*NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.
*
It wasn't until *EVERY* founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab.  That happened in 1876.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
Click to expand...

You just quoted them, dumbass.  Congress sets immigration policy, not the states.  Obama went to court to prove it.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a case you could make it without the name calling.  You think that turning America into a totalitarian cesspool is a great idea.  I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger.  I'm more right of center than you are.  So, there is your first problem.  The Bible puts it this way:
> 
> "_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13
> 
> You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are.  The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat.  The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists.  BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter.  His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all.  And Tanton is pro-eugenics.
> 
> So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists.  Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today.  But, it was *YOUR SIDE* that brought us tyranny on the installment plan.  *YOUR SIDE* took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle.  And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.
> 
> Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please spare me.  You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am.  There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.
> 
> Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis.  That's your conception of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.
> 
> Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life.  And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you bitch about all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "progress" are you referring to?
Click to expand...


Dude, really, if this immigration stuff is your religion, you better start thinking it over.

1)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought and *won* cases proving that one did not have to have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops..."_Social Security Number"
_
2)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against National ID and won against the battle to put the SSN on identification

3)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against the 14th Amendment and the two classes of citizenship it created along with the efforts to make all of us subjects of the 14th Amendment with NO *unalienable* Rights

4)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought to expand private property Rights

5)  Conservatives / constitutionalists fought to preserve the Fourth Amendment

What did your side do?

1)  So - called "_Patriot Act"
_
2) National ID / REAL ID Act with every American being forced to have an SSN

3)  Your side has expanded the 14th Amendment - even supported it

4)  The whole strategy you rely on came from an assault on private property Rights that the anti-immigrant side threw the towel in over and admitted defeat

5)  You've supported the *Constitution Free Zone* and the evisceration of the doctrine of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.

Hell, if I keep going, we'll have a book.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just quoted them, dumbass.  Congress sets immigration policy, not the states.  Obama went to court to prove it.
Click to expand...


Dumbass?  Spewing shit you wouldn't say to someone's face is purely a cowardly act.  Not everyone who washes up on our shores needs to be, wants to be or should be a citizen.  You don't even know what the fuck immigration is.  Let me define it for you:

"_The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence_."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

You seem to have this fascination with this idea that everybody that comes here should become a citizen.  You're calling me a dumbass and you don't know basic freaking U.S. history??????

In 1790 the first Naturalization Act was passed.  Only whites could become citizens.  Yet between then and the passage of the 14th Amendment *MILLIONS* of people came here and worked without becoming citizens.  Most of them did not qualify.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Don't have to.  While *ALL* of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state.  They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.
> 
> *NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.
> *
> It wasn't until *EVERY* founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab.  That happened in 1876.


Why do you suppose the Articles of Confederation had section 4? 





> Elaborates upon the intent "to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union," and to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice." All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which they travel. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.


Looks like the feds said who could cross state lines and who could be limited.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I could make my case without name calling, but I enjoy telling douche bags like you to stuff it.  Humiliation and ridicule are the only things leftwingers understand.  If they were capable of absorbing logic and facts, they wouldn't be leftwingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that I'm not a left-winger.  I'm more right of center than you are.  So, there is your first problem.  The Bible puts it this way:
> 
> "_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_."  Proverbs 18 : 13
> 
> You're not humiliating me; you are only proving how totally ignorant and uninformed you are.  The anti-immigrant lobby is so self absorbed and arrogant that they can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Your solutions are not solutions at all, but rather a recipe for defeat.  The only thing you see is the liberal argument versus the current ideas that were created by National Socialists.  BEFORE your side co-opted those lame arguments, they were put forth by David Duke, the former Nazi turned KKK supporter.  His number one man for creating talking points was John Tanton, the same guy that bankrolls FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) and NumbersUSA... a dozen or so anti-immigrant non-profits in all.  And Tanton is pro-eugenics.
> 
> So, there is the left's side, your side, and a side you don't even know exists.  Long before you jumped onto the National Socialists bandwagon, patriots existed that were working to eliminate what is going on today.  But, it was *YOUR SIDE* that brought us tyranny on the installment plan.  *YOUR SIDE* took away all the progress that had been made for fifty years before you got into this battle.  And while you think you're winning something; while you're deluding yourself into thinking you're outwitting the left, they are out-smarting you.
> 
> Both you, the Clintons / Sanders/ Obamas / etc. are all going to the same destination... just by different routes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please spare me.  You're calling me a Nazi and claiming you aren't a leftwinger, that you are further right than I am.  There's no one in this forum to the right of me, shit stick.
> 
> Hitler was a Vegan, so apparently all vegan's are Nazis.  That's your conception of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to pee down my neck and tell me it's raining, but nobody really buys that.
> 
> Dude, unlike Donald Trump I've never donated to nor voted for a Democrat in my life.  And your side, with their arrogance has destroyed fifty years of progress that would have ended the symptoms you bitch about all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "progress" are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, really, if this immigration stuff is your religion, you better start thinking it over.
> 
> 1)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought and *won* cases proving that one did not have to have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops..."_Social Security Number"
> _
> 2)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against National ID and won against the battle to put the SSN on identification
> 
> 3)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought against the 14th Amendment and the two classes of citizenship it created along with the efforts to make all of us subjects of the 14th Amendment with NO *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 4)  The conservatives / constitutionalists fought to expand private property Rights
> 
> 5)  Conservatives / constitutionalists fought to preserve the Fourth Amendment
> 
> What did your side do?
> 
> 1)  So - called "_Patriot Act"
> _
> 2) National ID / REAL ID Act with every American being forced to have an SSN
> 
> 3)  Your side has expanded the 14th Amendment - even supported it
> 
> 4)  The whole strategy you rely on came from an assault on private property Rights that the anti-immigrant side threw the towel in over and admitted defeat
> 
> 5)  You've supported the *Constitution Free Zone* and the evisceration of the doctrine of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Hell, if I keep going, we'll have a book.
Click to expand...

1) A SS # is only needed for certain things, sure you can live without one, but it is very difficult. SHRUG

2) So.....

3) ?? SMFH There is no 2 classes of citizenship. There is but one National Citizenship. The 14th citizenship clause merely made the 1866 CRA declared law in all states.

4) Private property rights have always been what they are, they predate the USC and the forming of the US.

5) The 4A is and always has been what it is, there is nothing about it that has been usurped.

You don't seem to like the laws that have been in place since the inception of this nation, you some how claim they are unconstitutional and the founders would be against them, yet the founders are the ones that put them in place. I suggest you read The Federalist Papers and learn basic founder principals and ideals verse spouting your Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protester hyperbole.


----------



## Crixus

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Roman Empire fell; China is communist; all the Jews know is war and fear.
> 
> We built the greatest nation in the annals of history and fought wars on every continent PLUS had war with our neighbors with open borders.
> 
> You can call me all the names you see fit, but it only hides the fact that you don't want to deal with the other side of the accounting ledger.  Not only are foreigners profitable for this country, but a wall around America jeopardizes the Freedoms and Liberties our forefathers fought, bled, and died in order to establish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.
> 
> It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our situation don't have squat to do with any "_open borders crowd_.
> 
> From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they *ALL* favored  what you want to call open borders.  It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  While *ALL* of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state.  They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.
> 
> *NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.
> *
> It wasn't until *EVERY* founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab.  That happened in 1876.
Click to expand...



ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Nuff said. Period. If you don’t like the laws, then take it up with law makers. You will just have to deal with that cup cake.


----------



## Humorme

Crixus said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> War and fear,  it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the  two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> . Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.
> 
> It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our situation don't have squat to do with any "_open borders crowd_.
> 
> From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they *ALL* favored  what you want to call open borders.  It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  While *ALL* of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state.  They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.
> 
> *NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.
> *
> It wasn't until *EVERY* founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab.  That happened in 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Nuff said. Period. If you don’t like the laws, then take it up with law makers. You will just have to deal with that cup cake.
Click to expand...


OMG.  Here comes that deflection.  It is* Improper Entry*.  And I *DO* take this issue up with the lawmakers...* EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT*.  Here is the way the United States Supreme Court says I can handle the matter:

_The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

_An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._

_No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256_)
_
Next....


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> OMG.  Here comes that deflection.  It is* Improper Entry*.  And I *DO* take this issue up with the lawmakers...* EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT*.  Here is the way the United States Supreme Court says I can handle the matter:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> — Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256_)
> _
> Next....


SMFH That is what SCOTUS says of a law that they find unconstitutional. That law may stay on the books yet is not enforceable. You don't get to decide if the law is unconstitutional or not. If you think a law is unconstitutional then you can challenge it, as long as you have standing, otherwise you are bound to following that law.

So what immigration law is it that you think is unconstitutional? What immigration law is it you think effects you?


----------



## beagle9

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is already working on it, and I support him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
Click to expand...

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
Click to expand...


I definitely don't agree with that.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Commerce Clause.  Real times of Commerce benefit from a low tax climate.

Real times of War, require real times of War, Tax Rates.



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## mudwhistle

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.


----------



## danielpalos

mudwhistle said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.
Click to expand...

too much socialism on a national basis.  We have a Commerce Clause.

Every foreign national should have a federal id, in the US.


----------



## dblack

It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.


----------



## danielpalos

dblack said:


> It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.


all political talk and no political action.  that is why some on the left don't take the right wing seriously about politics.


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster.  Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
Click to expand...


Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.


----------



## Humorme

mudwhistle said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.
Click to expand...



Just out of curiosity:  Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, how do you feel about sending all the blacks back to Africa?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
Click to expand...

And yet the Chy Lung case that you like to cite says the states don't have that ability. The states can hold no exterior relations with foreign nations. SHRUG


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
Click to expand...

not with gun lovers in the State and a Second Amendment.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.


What "individual rights" are they threatening?  What "big government" are they proposing?


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.
> 
> 
> 
> What "individual rights" are they threatening?  What "big government" are they proposing?
Click to expand...


The anti - immigrant lobby is responsible for:

*  The so - called "_Patriot Act_" 

*  National ID / REAL ID Act

*  National Defense Authorization Act

*  Repeal of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty

*  The expansion of the IRS via the ridiculous SSN requirement on National ID Cards

*  The assaults on private property Rights

*  The advocacy of building up the largest *POLICE STATE* in recorded history... and all over so - called "_illegal immigration_"

*  The creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security... much like Russia's Motherland and Nazi Germany's Fatherland

*  The creation of the *Constitution Free Zone

*  *Advocating Socialism in the private business sector while promoting the same, exact kinds of laws that resulted in hiring schemes like affirmative action, racial quotas, and preferential hiring ploys.

That's just the top ten.  When you have given support to the expansion of the 14th Amendment, which was illegally ratified, it says liberalism in a language that the Democrats cannot begin to compete with.

In all, your side has wasted *TRILLIONS* of tax dollars; effectively repealed the Fourth Amendment; built the world's most oppressive Militiary / Police force with no regard for boundaries and the separation of powers.  And you want to ask that question...  You really didn't know?


----------



## RealDave

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


  So, you think this wall, will stop all illegal immigration.  Wow, you are one dumb fuck.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.
Click to expand...


And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?  

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.


----------



## bripat9643

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think this wall, will stop all illegal immigration.  Wow, you are one dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


Every security expert thinks the same thing, dumbass.  They tell their clients to build walls and install chain link fences.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?
> 
> If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?
> 
> Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.
Click to expand...


Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> 
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?
> 
> If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?
> 
> Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.
Click to expand...


You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.

You were right about one thing:

It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?
> 
> If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?
> 
> Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.
> 
> You were right about one thing:
> 
> It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.
Click to expand...

I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.


----------



## beagle9

mudwhistle said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.
Click to expand...

 Hmm, may have been a better slogan..  Wonder what Vincent Fox would have said about that one ?? Nothing he could have said.


----------



## beagle9

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unonstitutional?  The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
Click to expand...

. Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> 
> 
> It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?
> 
> If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?
> 
> Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.
> 
> You were right about one thing:
> 
> It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.
Click to expand...


That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.

The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has* ONE* function relative to people coming into the United States:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_."  Article 1  Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.
> 
> The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.
Click to expand...


So if they had been one of those USDA prime Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "_Social Security Card_" carrying, National ID Card owning subjects of the *NEW WORLD ORDER*, those murders would be acceptable?


----------



## beagle9

Humorme said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority.  Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they had been one of those USDA prime Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "_Social Security Card_" carrying, National ID Card owning subjects of the *NEW WORLD ORDER*, those murders would be acceptable?
Click to expand...

. Neither would be exceptable. Still doesn't negate my point made, but nice deflection.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure as hell does.  Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?
> 
> If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?
> 
> Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.
> 
> You were right about one thing:
> 
> It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.
> 
> The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...


So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?


----------



## danielpalos

States have no obligation over immigration since 1808.  It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.


----------



## Humorme

beagle9 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You challenging me is idiotic at best.  Did you graduate the third grade?
> 
> Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?
> 
> 
> 
> . If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Tell that to Kate Steinle, oh that's right one of your guest killed her. and then got a slap on his wrist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if they had been one of those USDA prime Socialist Surveillance Number ... I mean "_Social Security Card_" carrying, National ID Card owning subjects of the *NEW WORLD ORDER*, those murders would be acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Neither would be exceptable. Still doesn't negate my point made, but nice deflection.
Click to expand...


You made no point except that human registration papers somehow makes a person less likely to commit murder.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?
> 
> If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?
> 
> Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin?  He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived.  He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.
> 
> He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.
> 
> You were right about one thing:
> 
> It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.
> 
> The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?
Click to expand...


I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> States have no obligation over immigration since 1808.  It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.



I don't think you understand.  Let us repeat something we've covered several times before:

Immigration - _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of *permanent residence*. 

immigration_

The United States Constitution limits the federal government's role in this.  It is:

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1  Section 8

Now, we all realize what ploy you're going to use, but the Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the liberals to say that the United States Supreme Court can do whatever in the Hell it wants subject to the misinterpretation of that part of the Constitution.

The right, on this issue, will gladly agree with you.  If it keeps the people from south of the border out, they'd agree with you, *KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IS THE SAME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION USED TO BAN FIREARMS*.  By all means, introduce it.

I've said all along that both the left and the right are going to the same place - just by different routes.

The Constitution absolutely does *NOT* give the federal government any *authority over the migration of people* (that we erroneously lump into the category of "immigration.)  Citizenship and migration / being present in any location are two horses of a different color.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tennesee can't outlaw firearms.  That would violate the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Here's the bottom line:  The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration.  As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.
> 
> You were right about one thing:
> 
> It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.
> 
> The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  Of course Tennessee can't outlaw firearms ...today.  It's an example.  Thank you for that cowardly deflection.
> 
> You were right about one thing:
> 
> It was the *United States Supreme Court* that gave the federal government plenary powers over immigration.  It's not a constitutional area that the feds have de jure authority over.  So, maybe, some day, Tennessee can violate the Constitution.   It's what you're advocating for immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.
> 
> The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.
Click to expand...


Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?

I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.

I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I frankly don't care who does it or the niggling details of the law.  I just want immigration to be controlled.  i want it reigned in and I want illegals kept out.  If you got a problem with that, then argue abou that, but don't feed me all this bullshit about how the federal government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.
> 
> The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


We have these things called "tourists visas."


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.


Well than its a good thing our laws, SCOTUS, legal scholars, Congress, and the overwhelming majority of US Citizens don't agree with your inability to comprehend the Constitution or the many rulings in using that very document calling you an idiot. SMFH

You like citing Chy Lung claiming that case gave Congress a Plenary Power it didn't have, yet that very ruling used the USC and pointed out in which very section of that document granted Congress the power over foreigners coming here and being here. gofigure


----------



## dblack

RealDave said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think this wall, will stop all illegal immigration.  Wow, you are one dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


You must be new here.


----------



## dblack




----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration since 1808.  It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.  Let us repeat something we've covered several times before:
> 
> Immigration - _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of *permanent residence*.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> The United States Constitution limits the federal government's role in this.  It is:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article 1  Section 8
> 
> Now, we all realize what ploy you're going to use, but the Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the liberals to say that the United States Supreme Court can do whatever in the Hell it wants subject to the misinterpretation of that part of the Constitution.
> 
> The right, on this issue, will gladly agree with you.  If it keeps the people from south of the border out, they'd agree with you, *KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IS THE SAME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION USED TO BAN FIREARMS*.  By all means, introduce it.
> 
> I've said all along that both the left and the right are going to the same place - just by different routes.
> 
> The Constitution absolutely does *NOT* give the federal government any *authority over the migration of people* (that we erroneously lump into the category of "immigration.)  Citizenship and migration / being present in any location are two horses of a different color.
Click to expand...

It is a fallacy of false Cause and false Standing, to assume no Tourism is involved and Only, immigration with our current, "means tested" forms of visa requirements.


----------



## Humorme

bripat9643 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's *ALL* the feds have jurisdiction over - immigration  which has been defined for you umpteen times.
> 
> The migration of people into a state is *NOT* under federal jurisdiction is our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have these things called "tourists visas."
Click to expand...


How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?

Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.

America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."

In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia, 

"_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777

Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.

This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:

"_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."

Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

Scott v. Sandford

I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.


----------



## Humorme

If you will take the time to read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, it makes ALL the points you make relative to your immigration argument.  Click the link and check it out.

Scott v. Sandford

The Republicans *illegally  *ratified the 14th Amendment eleven years after the Dred Scott decision and repealed the laws as you want them enforced today.  Trying to make this an argument over human registration papers that, without such, amount to the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn is disingenuous at best.

So, today, IF there is to be no discrimination, then telling one employer he / she can avail themselves of cheap foreign labor while denying it to someone else clearly violates the Constitution.  If you tell one family member of a citizen – you’re welcome to come, but not the other family member, that  is a clear violation.    Clearly we CAN limit the number of people we allow to become citizens;  however, thinking you can separate families over a piece of human registration paper issued by a corrupt government is a freaking joke.

Furthermore, for you to think the Courts will not over-turn new laws that separate families means that you need to read this response at least twice.  Building walls, turning us into a POLICE STATE and making all this noise over so – called “_illegal immigration_” when the only people lobbying for mandatory citizenship is your side negates your whole argument.  As Johnny Cash sang in The Farmer’s Almanac, “If a man had half his wishes, he would just double his trouble.”

Donald Trump is going to cut a deal to let two million or more “Dreamers” become citizens in exchange for a silly wall.  That wall will not affect 77 percent of the people you want to keep out… over 45 percent of undocumented foreigners come in via proper means and the Dreamers represent over a third of the people without papers in this country.  You will waste money on a nutty wall and the courts will then declare that you cannot separate families as it would be cruel and unusual punishment as per our Constitution.  Again, improper entry is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn.  Separating families over that is cruel and inhumane by anybody’s standards.

So, by slowly making America a third world cesspool with a wall that is meaningless, you will then have all that manpower from the wall being used against  the citizenry of the United States.  It will become the most oppressive government in the annals of history.  And yet there is a solution where everybody gets most of what they want WITHOUT walls, human registration papers, and more importantly without making citizens out of people that will one day outvote you and demand YOUR removal from society.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the federal government can prevent people from entering the country, but it can't prevent that person from entering a particular state?  Can you explain exactly how that works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have these things called "tourists visas."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?
> 
> Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.
> 
> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."
> 
> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.
> 
> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.
Click to expand...

This was a legal error after 1808.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that the government should interfere with *anyone's* Right to travel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have these things called "tourists visas."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?
> 
> Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.
> 
> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."
> 
> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.
> 
> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a legal error after 1808.
Click to expand...


Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that a single state should set immigration policy for the entire country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have these things called "tourists visas."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?
> 
> Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.
> 
> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."
> 
> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.
> 
> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a legal error after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.
Click to expand...

States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is the act of a person coming into the United States for the purposes of *permanent residence*.  What do you not understand about that?  The United States Constitution limits the federal government to:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_..."  Article 1  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Where, in those seven words do you find any authority to tell a state who they might invite into their state as *NON-CITIZENS*?  Are you aware of the fact that it is easier to* legally* get into communist China than into the United States?
> 
> I don't understand your fascination with thinking that everybody that comes into the United States has to become a citizen.  Just because a state lets people come in and work / visit / conduct legal business does not mean that they are allowing those people to become citizens.  States fully had that right until 1876 when the *United States Supreme Court* took it upon themselves to* grant plenary powers* over immigration to Congress.  Until then, who came and went in a state was the *state's authority*.  The federal government did not get involved until the issue of citizenship came up.
> 
> I'm still reading my copy of the Constitution and have yet to find that sentence that grants the United States Supreme Court* any authority* to grant to any branch of the government any powers it does not explicitly have in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have these things called "tourists visas."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?
> 
> Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.
> 
> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."
> 
> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.
> 
> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a legal error after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
Click to expand...


You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have these things called "tourists visas."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?
> 
> Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.
> 
> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."
> 
> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.
> 
> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was a legal error after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who is resorting fallacy. 

It is Article 1, Section 9.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."


America was not founded as a homeland for white people simply because Federal Naturalization limited it to free whites of good character. There were free blacks that were allowed the same privileges in the individual states in which they lived. There were even blacks that were recognized as US Citizens. Samuel Fox in 1854. http://memory.loc.gov:8081/ammem/aaohtml/OLD/archive/2-06r.jpg



Humorme said:


> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.


I wonder why there were black congressman during the time of the colonies and up through the Articles of Confederation.



Humorme said:


> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.


Explain the 1866 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> If you will take the time to read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, it makes ALL the points you make relative to your immigration argument.  Click the link and check it out.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> The Republicans *illegally  *ratified the 14th Amendment eleven years after the Dred Scott decision and repealed the laws as you want them enforced today.  Trying to make this an argument over human registration papers that, without such, amount to the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn is disingenuous at best.


If it was illegally ratified don't you think the SCOTUS would have refused to hear cases regarding it. The theory that it was illegally ratified came about in 1954, almost 100 years after it was recognized as being a part of the USC. What are you going to do about the 1866 CRA that the 14th is declaratory of? How is improper entry equivalent to a u-turn? Improper Entry (an actual criminal violation) is a Federal Misdemeanor, an improper u-turn (a state infraction similar to overstaying a visa which is an Administrative infraction) is a state vehicle infraction, two very different things. The only one being disingenuous is you.



Humorme said:


> So, today, IF there is to be no discrimination, then telling one employer he / she can avail themselves of cheap foreign labor while denying it to someone else clearly violates the Constitution.  If you tell one family member of a citizen – you’re welcome to come, but not the other family member, that  is a clear violation.    Clearly we CAN limit the number of people we allow to become citizens;  however, thinking you can separate families over a piece of human registration paper issued by a corrupt government is a freaking joke.


Both employers have the right to apply for foreign workers, if one gets the foreign worker and the other doesn't, then to bad. You claiming things violate the USC doesn't make any difference as your claims are worthless. One family member but not the other? LMFAO Foreigners don't have rights to come here, we can deny entry to whomever we so choose.



Humorme said:


> Furthermore, for you to think the Courts will not over-turn new laws that separate families means that you need to read this response at least twice.  Building walls, turning us into a POLICE STATE and making all this noise over so – called “_illegal immigration_” when the only people lobbying for mandatory citizenship is your side negates your whole argument.  As Johnny Cash sang in The Farmer’s Almanac, “If a man had half his wishes, he would just double his trouble.”


SCOTUS will have no opinion on the separation of families. If that were really the case then a single parent going to jail  would be denied jail time due to having a child. Your entire perception shows just how ignorant you truly are in regards to the law and the USC itself.



Humorme said:


> Donald Trump is going to cut a deal to let two million or more “Dreamers” become citizens in exchange for a silly wall.  That wall will not affect 77 percent of the people you want to keep out… over 45 percent of undocumented foreigners come in via proper means and the Dreamers represent over a third of the people without papers in this country.  You will waste money on a nutty wall and the courts will then declare that you cannot separate families as it would be cruel and unusual punishment as per our Constitution.  Again, improper entry is the federal equivalent of making an improper U Turn.  Separating families over that is cruel and inhumane by anybody’s standards.


The courts won't declare anything regarding separating families. It is not cruel and unusual punishment. The courts have already ruled on this. SMFH



Humorme said:


> So, by slowly making America a third world cesspool with a wall that is meaningless, you will then have all that manpower from the wall being used against  the citizenry of the United States.  It will become the most oppressive government in the annals of history.  And yet there is a solution where everybody gets most of what they want WITHOUT walls, human registration papers, and more importantly without making citizens out of people that will one day outvote you and demand YOUR removal from society.


Idiotic hyperbole. SMFH


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much longer are you and I going to have this dance?
> 
> Yes, America has visas.  We also have arbitrary caps on visas.  Now, why don't you and I do something that has not been done with the opposing sides?  Let's have an honest exchange without questioning each other's motives?  Let's try that.
> 
> America was founded as a homeland for the white people.  As evidence of that, the first Naturalization Act we enacted (1790) limited citizenship to "_free White persons of good character_."
> 
> In addition, virtually* every state's first constitution* limited the privilege of voting and holding office to white people.  For example, in my own home state of Georgia,
> 
> "_ART. IX. All male *white *inhabitants, of the age of twenty-one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State, or being of any mechanic trade, and shall have been resident six months in this State, shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers, herein agreed to be chosen by the people at large; and every person having a right to vote at any election shall vote by ballot personally_..."  Constitution of Georgia 5 Feb 1777
> 
> Let me know which of the original colonies you would like to see examples of like the above.
> 
> This went on from the ratification of the Constitution until 1857 when the *United States Supreme Court* handed down the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision.  In that decision, the court determined that blacks could not be citizens.  Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court.  Here are a couple of important things to note  Taney wrote:
> 
> "_It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.
> 
> ...It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
> 
> They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit_."
> 
> Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> I'm going to have to break this into two posts for you.
> 
> 
> 
> This was a legal error after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.
> 
> It is Article 1, Section 9.
Click to expand...



Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?

Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> States have no obligation over immigration since 1808.  It is a federal problem and all foreign nationals in the US, should have federal id.


. Not if it's gonna force Americans to have to have an ID that is more than what we have now or that changes what we have now. If it's gonna cause these kinds of troubles, then send them back home.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was a legal error after 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.
> 
> It is Article 1, Section 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?
> 
> Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.
Click to expand...

Just right wing propaganda.


_Article 1, Section 9_
_Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government has had NO de jure authority in migration since the Constitution was ratified and the U.S. Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of immigration in 1876.
> 
> 
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.
> 
> It is Article 1, Section 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?
> 
> Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> _Article 1, Section 9_
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._
Click to expand...


More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.

HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

_Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
_
SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have no obligation over immigration into the Union since 1808; it is a federal Obligation and all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.
> 
> It is Article 1, Section 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?
> 
> Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> _Article 1, Section 9_
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.
> 
> HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.
Click to expand...

Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> _
> SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.


It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> _
> SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.
Click to expand...

Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong and repeating it won't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.
> 
> It is Article 1, Section 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?
> 
> Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> _Article 1, Section 9_
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.
> 
> HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.
Click to expand...


What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> _
> SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH
Click to expand...

It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one who is resorting fallacy.
> 
> It is Article 1, Section 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?
> 
> Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> _Article 1, Section 9_
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.
> 
> HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?
Click to expand...

from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> _
> SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are resorting to fallacies and you can add misrepresentations to that as well.  Is this about to become another of those yes it is, not it isn't threads where you finally get the last word and get the thread shut down?  Is that the game we're going to play?
> 
> Your interpretation of the Constitution does not constitute what the *United States Supreme Court ruled *NOR what reality was up through 1876.
> 
> 
> 
> Just right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> _Article 1, Section 9_
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.
> 
> HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.
Click to expand...


danielpalos,

I sometimes don't understand your posts because I get alerts that you are responding to me when it appears you are responding to someone else.  I suspect it has something to do with people who the mods had me put on ignore.  Nevertheless,  Let's dispel this 1808 nonsense once and for all.

One attorney put it like this:

"_In addition, the Migration or Importation Clause provides Congress with the authority to prohibit migration and importation after 1808.(2) However, historical sources agree that this provision was to address the slave trade and *not the migration of free persons*_."

What entity has authority in U.S. immigration law? - Kind

A copy of what danielpalos babbles on about can be found at:

The Avalon Project : Statutes of the United States Concerning Slavery

As per your arguments regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means to deny people entry into the United States to take advantage of job opportunities, as opposed to becoming citizens -  I suppose you "_could"_ argue that. But, you should be forewarned that there are truisms that history has provided us.  Frederic Bastiat, who wrote the popular book "_The Law_" observed:

 "_When goods don't cross borders, armies will_."

If foreign workers are "_goods_"  (I'm not criticizing your point on that) then common sense dictates that if it takes armies to put them on U.S. soil, then that is the destiny you are lobbying for on this board.

A wall in our era is not a deterrent to the free market.  In the past, people put up walls in order to preserve, protect, and defend a nation - and those nations generally had a degree of homogeneity holding them together.

What we have today is a proposal to make a full third of the undocumented foreigners into citizens, throw up a wall and declare victory.  The reality is, those Dreamers are going to become citizens; they will have families; ultimately they will gain power, vote and put a liberal in office that will dismantle the wall, leaving the technology and the manpower to be used against the very people that lobbied for the wall.  As for me, I'm just not dumb enough to buy the bullets that someone else will shoot me with.  I'm about a permanent and mutually beneficial solution for *all *sides.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> _
> SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> _Article 1, Section 9_
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.
> 
> HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I sometimes don't understand your posts because I get alerts that you are responding to me when it appears you are responding to someone else.  I suspect it has something to do with people who the mods had me put on ignore.  Nevertheless,  Let's dispel this 1808 nonsense once and for all.
> 
> One attorney put it like this:
> 
> "_In addition, the Migration or Importation Clause provides Congress with the authority to prohibit migration and importation after 1808.(2) However, historical sources agree that this provision was to address the slave trade and *not the migration of free persons*_."
> 
> What entity has authority in U.S. immigration law? - Kind
> 
> A copy of what danielpalos babbles on about can be found at:
> 
> The Avalon Project : Statutes of the United States Concerning Slavery
> 
> As per your arguments regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means to deny people entry into the United States to take advantage of job opportunities, as opposed to becoming citizens -  I suppose you "_could"_ argue that. But, you should be forewarned that there are truisms that history has provided us.  Frederic Bastiat, who wrote the popular book "_The Law_" observed:
> 
> "_When goods don't cross borders, armies will_."
> 
> If foreign workers are "_goods_"  (I'm not criticizing your point on that) then common sense dictates that if it takes armies to put them on U.S. soil, then that is the destiny you are lobbying for on this board.
> 
> A wall in our era is not a deterrent to the free market.  In the past, people put up walls in order to preserve, protect, and defend a nation - and those nations generally had a degree of homogeneity holding them together.
> 
> What we have today is a proposal to make a full third of the undocumented foreigners into citizens, throw up a wall and declare victory.  The reality is, those Dreamers are going to become citizens; they will have families; ultimately they will gain power, vote and put a liberal in office that will dismantle the wall, leaving the technology and the manpower to be used against the very people that lobbied for the wall.  As for me, I'm just not dumb enough to buy the bullets that someone else will shoot me with.  I'm about a permanent and mutually beneficial solution for *all *sides.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to the literal interpretation of the law.  Special pleading is a right wing tactic that is unwarranted in this case.  It is about federal supremacy over immigration into the Union after 1808.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons (*SLAVES*) as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation (of *SLAVES*), not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> _
> SMFH at the shear stupidity to think this has anything to do with foreigners immigrating here on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> More B.S. from the bot.  I'm no right winger and you use that as an insult.  Do it again and I'll report it.  You7 may as well be calling people the N word.  Stick to the topic.  No more personal insults.
> 
> HMMMM... SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED...From YOUR own quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I sometimes don't understand your posts because I get alerts that you are responding to me when it appears you are responding to someone else.  I suspect it has something to do with people who the mods had me put on ignore.  Nevertheless,  Let's dispel this 1808 nonsense once and for all.
> 
> One attorney put it like this:
> 
> "_In addition, the Migration or Importation Clause provides Congress with the authority to prohibit migration and importation after 1808.(2) However, historical sources agree that this provision was to address the slave trade and *not the migration of free persons*_."
> 
> What entity has authority in U.S. immigration law? - Kind
> 
> A copy of what danielpalos babbles on about can be found at:
> 
> The Avalon Project : Statutes of the United States Concerning Slavery
> 
> As per your arguments regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means to deny people entry into the United States to take advantage of job opportunities, as opposed to becoming citizens -  I suppose you "_could"_ argue that. But, you should be forewarned that there are truisms that history has provided us.  Frederic Bastiat, who wrote the popular book "_The Law_" observed:
> 
> "_When goods don't cross borders, armies will_."
> 
> If foreign workers are "_goods_"  (I'm not criticizing your point on that) then common sense dictates that if it takes armies to put them on U.S. soil, then that is the destiny you are lobbying for on this board.
> 
> A wall in our era is not a deterrent to the free market.  In the past, people put up walls in order to preserve, protect, and defend a nation - and those nations generally had a degree of homogeneity holding them together.
> 
> What we have today is a proposal to make a full third of the undocumented foreigners into citizens, throw up a wall and declare victory.  The reality is, those Dreamers are going to become citizens; they will have families; ultimately they will gain power, vote and put a liberal in office that will dismantle the wall, leaving the technology and the manpower to be used against the very people that lobbied for the wall.  As for me, I'm just not dumb enough to buy the bullets that someone else will shoot me with.  I'm about a permanent and mutually beneficial solution for *all *sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to the literal interpretation of the law.  Special pleading is a right wing tactic that is unwarranted in this case.  It is about federal supremacy over immigration into the Union after 1808.
Click to expand...


Your back door name calling and misinterpretation of the law is so ridiculous that you couldn't sell it to a colony of morons.  So, keep up that canard that what you don't understand has something to do with the right wing.  Keep it up.  The right loves it.  It serves as a testament to the lack of intelligence rampant on the left.


----------



## regent

So after the wall is built our costs will hopefully be: 148.3  billion plus the payment for the wall.


----------



## regent

So if we built the wall it would only add 21.6 billion to the cost of the immigrants?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about immigration into the Union; States have no authority after 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless?  It says immigration into the Union is a federal obligation after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I sometimes don't understand your posts because I get alerts that you are responding to me when it appears you are responding to someone else.  I suspect it has something to do with people who the mods had me put on ignore.  Nevertheless,  Let's dispel this 1808 nonsense once and for all.
> 
> One attorney put it like this:
> 
> "_In addition, the Migration or Importation Clause provides Congress with the authority to prohibit migration and importation after 1808.(2) However, historical sources agree that this provision was to address the slave trade and *not the migration of free persons*_."
> 
> What entity has authority in U.S. immigration law? - Kind
> 
> A copy of what danielpalos babbles on about can be found at:
> 
> The Avalon Project : Statutes of the United States Concerning Slavery
> 
> As per your arguments regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means to deny people entry into the United States to take advantage of job opportunities, as opposed to becoming citizens -  I suppose you "_could"_ argue that. But, you should be forewarned that there are truisms that history has provided us.  Frederic Bastiat, who wrote the popular book "_The Law_" observed:
> 
> "_When goods don't cross borders, armies will_."
> 
> If foreign workers are "_goods_"  (I'm not criticizing your point on that) then common sense dictates that if it takes armies to put them on U.S. soil, then that is the destiny you are lobbying for on this board.
> 
> A wall in our era is not a deterrent to the free market.  In the past, people put up walls in order to preserve, protect, and defend a nation - and those nations generally had a degree of homogeneity holding them together.
> 
> What we have today is a proposal to make a full third of the undocumented foreigners into citizens, throw up a wall and declare victory.  The reality is, those Dreamers are going to become citizens; they will have families; ultimately they will gain power, vote and put a liberal in office that will dismantle the wall, leaving the technology and the manpower to be used against the very people that lobbied for the wall.  As for me, I'm just not dumb enough to buy the bullets that someone else will shoot me with.  I'm about a permanent and mutually beneficial solution for *all *sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to the literal interpretation of the law.  Special pleading is a right wing tactic that is unwarranted in this case.  It is about federal supremacy over immigration into the Union after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your back door name calling and misinterpretation of the law is so ridiculous that you couldn't sell it to a colony of morons.  So, keep up that canard that what you don't understand has something to do with the right wing.  Keep it up.  The right loves it.  It serves as a testament to the lack of intelligence rampant on the left.
Click to expand...

Foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## Humorme

regent said:


> So after the wall is built our costs will hopefully be: 148.3  billion plus the payment for the wall.





danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its about bringing slaves into the country at a port. SMFH
> 
> 
> 
> It is about federal supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think IMMIGRATION is?  Are you that clueless?  Really, are you that stupid that you want to argue points that have been made fifty times?  Is it that or are you delighting yourself in trolling and derailing this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from our nearest trading partners, it should be tourism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I sometimes don't understand your posts because I get alerts that you are responding to me when it appears you are responding to someone else.  I suspect it has something to do with people who the mods had me put on ignore.  Nevertheless,  Let's dispel this 1808 nonsense once and for all.
> 
> One attorney put it like this:
> 
> "_In addition, the Migration or Importation Clause provides Congress with the authority to prohibit migration and importation after 1808.(2) However, historical sources agree that this provision was to address the slave trade and *not the migration of free persons*_."
> 
> What entity has authority in U.S. immigration law? - Kind
> 
> A copy of what danielpalos babbles on about can be found at:
> 
> The Avalon Project : Statutes of the United States Concerning Slavery
> 
> As per your arguments regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as a means to deny people entry into the United States to take advantage of job opportunities, as opposed to becoming citizens -  I suppose you "_could"_ argue that. But, you should be forewarned that there are truisms that history has provided us.  Frederic Bastiat, who wrote the popular book "_The Law_" observed:
> 
> "_When goods don't cross borders, armies will_."
> 
> If foreign workers are "_goods_"  (I'm not criticizing your point on that) then common sense dictates that if it takes armies to put them on U.S. soil, then that is the destiny you are lobbying for on this board.
> 
> A wall in our era is not a deterrent to the free market.  In the past, people put up walls in order to preserve, protect, and defend a nation - and those nations generally had a degree of homogeneity holding them together.
> 
> What we have today is a proposal to make a full third of the undocumented foreigners into citizens, throw up a wall and declare victory.  The reality is, those Dreamers are going to become citizens; they will have families; ultimately they will gain power, vote and put a liberal in office that will dismantle the wall, leaving the technology and the manpower to be used against the very people that lobbied for the wall.  As for me, I'm just not dumb enough to buy the bullets that someone else will shoot me with.  I'm about a permanent and mutually beneficial solution for *all *sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to the literal interpretation of the law.  Special pleading is a right wing tactic that is unwarranted in this case.  It is about federal supremacy over immigration into the Union after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your back door name calling and misinterpretation of the law is so ridiculous that you couldn't sell it to a colony of morons.  So, keep up that canard that what you don't understand has something to do with the right wing.  Keep it up.  The right loves it.  It serves as a testament to the lack of intelligence rampant on the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
Click to expand...


Winston Smith, is that you again?  You know, the more you post, the more it drives people to want to become right wingers.

When I started posting here I was *clearly *a Libertarian.  Your National Socialist mantra (repeat a lie often enough and it is accepted as truth) might work out for you.  I very well may shift right and Donald Trump will thank you from the bottom of his heart.

If your intent is to make people want to support the right, you're a better salesman for it than Trump.  If you're not on his payroll, you should be.

Free people can NEVER endorse a *POLICE STATE* nor trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.


----------



## P@triot

So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...


> Some businesses — at least 40 in the Stockton area — have gone so far as to install *electrified* fencing to keep the nightly intruders off their property.


And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.

Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...
> 
> 
> 
> Some businesses — at least 40 in the Stockton area — have gone so far as to install *electrified* fencing to keep the nightly intruders off their property.
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.
> 
> Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless
Click to expand...

Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...
> 
> 
> 
> Some businesses — at least 40 in the Stockton area — have gone so far as to install *electrified* fencing to keep the nightly intruders off their property.
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.
> 
> Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...

. Even if choosing not to work ??


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...
> 
> 
> 
> Some businesses — at least 40 in the Stockton area — have gone so far as to install *electrified* fencing to keep the nightly intruders off their property.
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.
> 
> Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Even if choosing not to work ??
Click to expand...

Is employment at-will or not?


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...
> 
> 
> 
> Some businesses — at least 40 in the Stockton area — have gone so far as to install *electrified* fencing to keep the nightly intruders off their property.
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.
> 
> Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Even if choosing not to work ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
Click to expand...

 .A man that won't work, don't eat.


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...
> 
> 
> 
> Some businesses — at least 40 in the Stockton area — have gone so far as to install *electrified* fencing to keep the nightly intruders off their property.
> 
> 
> 
> And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.
> 
> Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Even if choosing not to work ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
Click to expand...

You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for the progressive’s claims that fences don’t stop people...
> And so much for progressive “compassion”. Electric fence?!? But what about the _children_? How many _children_ accidentally touch it and get electrocuted? Heartless progressive sick bastards.
> 
> Stockton businesses suffer from impact of homeless
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Even if choosing not to work ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
Click to expand...

. Meaning ??


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there any homelessness?  Anyone not working should have recourse to unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> . Even if choosing not to work ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Meaning ??
Click to expand...

The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.


And that “employment at will” carries with it the *personal* *responsibility* of your choices. So yes, it absolutely is “work or die”. Stop being a parasite.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
> 
> 
> 
> And that “employment at will” carries with it the *personal* *responsibility* of your choices. So yes, it absolutely is “work or die”. Stop being a parasite.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing says that with a straight face, in the Age of Corporate Welfare that even pays out multimillion dollar bonuses.  That is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Even if choosing not to work ??
> 
> 
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Meaning ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
Click to expand...

 .Ok, and if you choose not to work, then who pays ??  Your mom and dad until you are 40 ? I sure don't want to pay for you to choose not to work... See how that works?


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
> 
> 
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Meaning ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Ok, and if you choose not to work, then who pays ??  Your mom and dad until you are 40 ? I sure don't want to pay for you to choose not to work... See how that works?
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation is less expensive than means tested welfare.  We could be improving the efficiency of our economy by lowering our costs, with a simpler product.

In my opinion, unemployment compensation taxes should be paid by employers since they benefit the most from capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment (merely for the bottom line.)


----------



## basquebromance

mexico has a wall in Tijuana, and here it is...


----------



## regent

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is employment at-will or not?
> 
> 
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Meaning ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Ok, and if you choose not to work, then who pays ??  Your mom and dad until you are 40 ? I sure don't want to pay for you to choose not to work... See how that works?
Click to expand...

VA hospitals are filled with guys that won't work.


----------



## danielpalos

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.  Providing for the general warfare is not.


----------



## beagle9

regent said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .A man that won't work, don't eat.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Meaning ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Ok, and if you choose not to work, then who pays ??  Your mom and dad until you are 40 ? I sure don't want to pay for you to choose not to work... See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA hospitals are filled with guys that won't work.
Click to expand...

. Good grief... Care to keep it in context maybe ?? If in a VA hospital, of course they aren't working, and the military takes care of those who would lay down their lives for others. Their injuries weren't by choice, neither is their not being able to work due to those injuries. To be healthy, a U.S. citizen, and not choosing to work for no good reason is on you, and you will bare the burden of that choice, and not the U.S. working class taxpayers. The idiocy has to end.


----------



## regent

beagle9 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not that moral or that religious; and, we have a First Amendment and State equivalents.
> 
> 
> 
> . Meaning ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Ok, and if you choose not to work, then who pays ??  Your mom and dad until you are 40 ? I sure don't want to pay for you to choose not to work... See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA hospitals are filled with guys that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Good grief... Care to keep it in context maybe ?? If in a VA hospital, of course they aren't working, and the military takes care of those who would lay down their lives for others. Their injuries weren't by choice, neither is their not being able to work due to those injuries. To be healthy, a U.S. citizen, and not choosing to work for no good reason is on you, and you will bare the burden of that choice, and not the U.S. working class taxpayers. The idiocy has to end.
Click to expand...

The point being that there may be reasons poor people do not work. Maybe they have disabilities not suffered in the military, but they are still disabled.


----------



## beagle9

regent said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Meaning ??
> 
> 
> 
> The law is employment at will, not work-or-die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Ok, and if you choose not to work, then who pays ??  Your mom and dad until you are 40 ? I sure don't want to pay for you to choose not to work... See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA hospitals are filled with guys that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Good grief... Care to keep it in context maybe ?? If in a VA hospital, of course they aren't working, and the military takes care of those who would lay down their lives for others. Their injuries weren't by choice, neither is their not being able to work due to those injuries. To be healthy, a U.S. citizen, and not choosing to work for no good reason is on you, and you will bare the burden of that choice, and not the U.S. working class taxpayers. The idiocy has to end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point being that there may be reasons poor people do not work. Maybe they have disabilities not suffered in the military, but they are still disabled.
Click to expand...

. Umm, we are discussing those who choose as in ((((MAKE A CHOICE)))) not too. 

We aren't talking about anyone who truly needs assistance or at least I wasn't, and then here you come trying to throw that into the conversation.


----------



## danielpalos

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.


Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
Click to expand...

Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
Click to expand...

. Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.

A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
Click to expand...

. We are a country with borders.. End of story.


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
Click to expand...

Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
Click to expand...

 .No it's not.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
Click to expand...

Just build the wall.  No ID needed.  No Gestapo raiding businessness needed.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
Click to expand...


Where does the Constitution say that?


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .No it's not.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is since 1808.  That is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or politics.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just build the wall.  No ID needed.  No Gestapo raiding businessness needed.
Click to expand...

The Great Walls of America; we have a Commerce Clause!


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US are a federal obligation since 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
Click to expand...


Nope, it doesn't say anything like that:
*
Article I, Section 9:*​
_The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) *(Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)*

 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State._​


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, it doesn't say anything like that:
> *
> Article I, Section 9:*​
> _The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
> 
> (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) *(Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)*
> 
> No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
> No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
> 
> No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
> 
> Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State._​
Click to expand...

You have to be able to understand the language of the Constitution.

_The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person._

That makes it a federal Obligation after 1808.

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just build the wall.  No ID needed.  No Gestapo raiding businessness needed.
Click to expand...

 .Barriers will be upgraded of course, and a barrier will be built in some areas of need, but the wall talk as if we are going to build some gargantuan wall along the border between Mexico and North America is a fantasy. This nation has crisis after crisis going on in other government programs, and we need money to shore up those programs in order to repair them.

This border can be fixed without spending billions of dollars on it, but it must start with actively enforcing against the problem of the draw coming from within.  Protecting those within this country who are aiding and abetting the illegals, and creating the draw that is about to cost us billions along the border where the real problem is actually hundreds or thousands of miles inward is ridiculous.  How stupid are we as a people again ??


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just build the wall.  No ID needed.  No Gestapo raiding businessness needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Barriers will be upgraded of course, and a barrier will be built in some areas of need, but the wall talk as if we are going to build some gargantuan wall along the border between Mexico and North America is a fantasy. This nation has crisis after crisis going on in other government programs, and we need money to shore up those programs in order to repair them.
> 
> This border can be fixed without spending billions of dollars on it, but it must start with actively enforcing against the problem of the draw coming from within.  Protecting those within this country who are aiding and abetting the illegals, and creating the draw that is about to cost us billions along the border where the real problem is actually hundreds or thousands of miles inward ??  How stupid are we as a people again ??
Click to expand...

Prohibition is no solution to Commerce.

Tourism is what we have.  There should be no visa overstays, only fines for not renewing on time.


----------



## beagle9

danielpalos said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .No it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is since 1808.  That is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or politics.
Click to expand...

. Since 1808 ?  Ok, so what methods were used in the past, and why the upgrade needed now ?? You see, here we have (since 1808) all of those years of education and learning about the issue, and we have applied methods and solutions to the issue, but all of a sudden we get to this period in time, and we just went stupid ??????? LOL.

Funny how this nation loves to admit to it's idiocy today, and how it threw away hundreds of years of wisdom and knowledge about the battles it had already won, and had solved over those years.  Pathetic.


----------



## bripat9643

beagle9 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just build the wall.  No ID needed.  No Gestapo raiding businessness needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Barriers will be upgraded of course, and a barrier will be built in some areas of need, but the wall talk as if we are going to build some gargantuan wall along the border between Mexico and North America is a fantasy. This nation has crisis after crisis going on in other government programs, and we need money to shore up those programs in order to repair them.
> 
> This border can be fixed without spending billions of dollars on it, but it must start with actively enforcing against the problem of the draw coming from within.  Protecting those within this country who are aiding and abetting the illegals, and creating the draw that is about to cost us billions along the border where the real problem is actually hundreds or thousands of miles inward is ridiculous.  How stupid are we as a people again ??
Click to expand...


If you're against the wall, you're an open-borders douchebag.  What we need is a fucking will.  Our biggest crisis is the hoard of foreign invaders flooding accross our border.

Do you actually believe Democrats are going to enforce the border once they get in office?  You naivete shows why no one should credit a thing you say on the subject.

I hope no one is stupid enough to take your advice.

Build the fucking wall.


----------



## beagle9

bripat9643 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.  It is more important and effective than a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal ID for whose purposes ??  Why not just enforce the law ??? No need for all this tech stuff, just enforce the laws already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just build the wall.  No ID needed.  No Gestapo raiding businessness needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .Barriers will be upgraded of course, and a barrier will be built in some areas of need, but the wall talk as if we are going to build some gargantuan wall along the border between Mexico and North America is a fantasy. This nation has crisis after crisis going on in other government programs, and we need money to shore up those programs in order to repair them.
> 
> This border can be fixed without spending billions of dollars on it, but it must start with actively enforcing against the problem of the draw coming from within.  Protecting those within this country who are aiding and abetting the illegals, and creating the draw that is about to cost us billions along the border where the real problem is actually hundreds or thousands of miles inward is ridiculous.  How stupid are we as a people again ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're against the wall, you're an open-borders douchebag.  What we need is a fucking will.  Our biggest crisis is the hoard of foreign invaders flooding accross our border.
> 
> Do you actually believe Democrats are going to enforce the border once they get in office?  You naivete shows why no one should credit a thing you say on the subject.
> 
> I hope no one is stupid enough to take your advice.
> 
> Build the fucking wall.
Click to expand...

 .So you admit that the Demon-crats will be back in office ???  Ok, and what do you think that the wall (in whatever form it takes), will do if they want that border open ??? It would be best to clean house in this country, and take away the draw that is bringing them over, under and through the river, fences, barriers, and walls that are already in place.  You can't be as dumb as you are speaking right ??  So Trump said WALL, and you worry that if we don't do exactly as he said (in which he has already refined in his speak that a wall won't be built along the entire border), then it will destroy Trump or make him look like a fool to you ??  Listen, no one wants a situation that can't be debated, and if you are like this, then you would probably go follow the next up and coming Jim Jones, because you might just be that rabid minded.


----------



## danielpalos

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .No it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is since 1808.  That is why nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law, or politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Since 1808 ?  Ok, so what methods were used in the past, and why the upgrade needed now ?? You see, here we have (since 1808) all of those years of education and learning about the issue, and we have applied methods and solutions to the issue, but all of a sudden we get to this period in time, and we just went stupid ??????? LOL.
> 
> Funny how this nation loves to admit to it's idiocy today, and how it threw away hundreds of years of wisdom and knowledge about the battles it had already won, and had solved over those years.  Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law; only because they have the affirmative action of the franchise.

Immigration into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808.

All foreigners in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
Click to expand...


Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.

Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
Click to expand...

Just a waste of money.  A wall does nothing for visa overstays.


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
Click to expand...


No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
Click to expand...


What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
Click to expand...


What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
Click to expand...


What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?


----------



## Indeependent

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Who ever said the wall will be 2,000 miles long?
Trump specifically said most of the natural terrain does not need a wall.
You're a dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## kaz

Indeependent said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who ever said the wall will be 2,000 miles long?
> Trump specifically said most of the natural terrain does not need a wall.
> You're a dishonest piece of shit.
Click to expand...


On one hand Bulldog is a dishonest piece of shit.  On the other hand.

Hmm.

That's all I've got ...


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
Click to expand...


What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.


----------



## Indeependent

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
Click to expand...

You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
Click to expand...


Your hypocrisy has everything to do with it


----------



## kaz

Indeependent said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
Click to expand...


Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
Click to expand...


Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.


----------



## Indeependent

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
Click to expand...

No, asshole, I have posted many times that Trump ran on the reality and tonight you're being a fucking liar.
You think I don't remember who I converse with?
Too bad for you that I know full well you *know* the truth.


----------



## beagle9

Indeependent said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who ever said the wall will be 2,000 miles long?
> Trump specifically said most of the natural terrain does not need a wall.
> You're a dishonest piece of shit.
Click to expand...

. Please relay this message to Bri except for the pos thing. Thanks


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the wall will be 2000 miles long and at least 30 feet high, and Mexico is going to pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
Click to expand...


You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.

I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.

Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that


----------



## kaz

Indeependent said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, asshole, I have posted many times that Trump ran on the reality and tonight you're being a fucking liar.
> You think I don't remember who I converse with?
> Too bad for you that I know full well you *know* the truth.
Click to expand...


Bulldog just wants to hold politicians accountable for not keeping promises.  He's really serious about that, it's a big thing to him.   Sure, now it's Trump, but Bulldog, tell us again how you ripped Obama a new one over "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Man, you just lost it, right Bulldog?  I mean Obama was your guy, but he promised.  Bulldog don't play that game.  President says it, he delivers or Bulldog calls him out on it.  That's Bulldog's world.  Right Bulldog?


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares?  Building the wall is so much worth the cost on our own.
> 
> Oh, wait, I get it.  You're talking about POTUS not lying.  Like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."   You mean like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No answer, so you went right to the diversion. Typical RWNJ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about we need to build a wall and I don't give a shit who pays for it do you fail to grasp?  What about that is unclear?
Click to expand...

invested in Wall options?


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
Click to expand...


Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, asshole, I have posted many times that Trump ran on the reality and tonight you're being a fucking liar.
> You think I don't remember who I converse with?
> Too bad for you that I know full well you *know* the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog just wants to hold politicians accountable for not keeping promises.  He's really serious about that, it's a big thing to him.   Sure, now it's Trump, but Bulldog, tell us again how you ripped Obama a new one over "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Man, you just lost it, right Bulldog?  I mean Obama was your guy, but he promised.  Bulldog don't play that game.  President says it, he delivers or Bulldog calls him out on it.  That's Bulldog's world.  Right Bulldog?
Click to expand...


Great. That's your goto quote from Obama. He was wrong but that seems to be about the only quote you can come up with. There are hundreds of quotes just as wrong from Trump.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now it's Trump, but Bulldog, tell us again how you ripped Obama a new one over "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Man, you just lost it, right Bulldog?  I mean Obama was your guy, but he promised.  Bulldog don't play that game.  President says it, he delivers or Bulldog calls him out on it.  That's Bulldog's world.  Right Bulldog?
> 
> 
> 
> Great. That's your goto quote from Obama. He was wrong but that seems to be about the only quote you can come up with. There are hundreds of quotes just as wrong from Trump.
Click to expand...

Hey Bulldog - _every_ word that came out of Obama’s mouth was an egregious lie. I can gvie you as many quotes as you’d like. Just let me know.


----------



## P@triot

President Trump had the most successful first year of _any_ president in the modern era...


> Arrests made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rose by 30% during Trump’s first full year in the White House


It’s nice to see our laws being properly enforced once again. It’s nice to see these dirt-bag criminals being deported.

See what happened to ICE arrests once Trump took office — the change is drastic


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> President Trump had the most successful first year of _any_ president in the modern era...
> 
> 
> 
> Arrests made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rose by 30% during Trump’s first full year in the White House
> 
> 
> 
> It’s nice to see our laws being properly enforced once again. It’s nice to see these dirt-bag criminals being deported.
> 
> See what happened to ICE arrests once Trump took office — the change is drastic
Click to expand...


Right Trump-0 even ignored the law congress passed specifically to make him enact the sanctions on Russia. Our orange president is a law breaker.


----------



## P@triot

BULLDOG said:


> Our orange president is a law breaker.


Our black president was an egregious law breaker. Our current president has followed the law to the letter.


----------



## BULLDOG

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our orange president is a law breaker.
> 
> 
> 
> Our black president was an egregious law breaker. Our current president has followed the law to the letter.
Click to expand...


Credible proof?


----------



## Indeependent

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
Click to expand...

And yet you think it's alright for you to play the amnesia game and misquote Trump.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
Click to expand...


So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, now it's Trump, but Bulldog, tell us again how you ripped Obama a new one over "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Man, you just lost it, right Bulldog?  I mean Obama was your guy, but he promised.  Bulldog don't play that game.  President says it, he delivers or Bulldog calls him out on it.  That's Bulldog's world.  Right Bulldog?
> 
> 
> 
> Great. That's your goto quote from Obama. He was wrong but that seems to be about the only quote you can come up with. There are hundreds of quotes just as wrong from Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Bulldog - _every_ word that came out of Obama’s mouth was an egregious lie. I can gvie you as many quotes as you’d like. Just let me know.
Click to expand...

I've already done that.  I counted 21 lies in his inaugrural address, alone.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
Click to expand...


If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
Click to expand...

His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.


----------



## BULLDOG

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
Click to expand...


I know. Kinda crazy of them, isn't it?


----------



## danielpalos

Mr. Trump alleged to have a fine and wonderful healthcare plan; not, nothing but repeal.


----------



## bripat9643

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Kinda crazy of them, isn't it?
Click to expand...


No, it's entirely rational and sensible.  The numskulls who oppose it are the ones acting crazy.


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about that has to do with this thread? Quit trying diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
Click to expand...


Trump lies far less than the media and Democrats do.  And I'm not defending Trump in that


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, asshole, I have posted many times that Trump ran on the reality and tonight you're being a fucking liar.
> You think I don't remember who I converse with?
> Too bad for you that I know full well you *know* the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bulldog just wants to hold politicians accountable for not keeping promises.  He's really serious about that, it's a big thing to him.   Sure, now it's Trump, but Bulldog, tell us again how you ripped Obama a new one over "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Man, you just lost it, right Bulldog?  I mean Obama was your guy, but he promised.  Bulldog don't play that game.  President says it, he delivers or Bulldog calls him out on it.  That's Bulldog's world.  Right Bulldog?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. That's your goto quote from Obama. He was wrong but that seems to be about the only quote you can come up with. There are hundreds of quotes just as wrong from Trump.
Click to expand...


I only gave you one quote on Obama to match your one quote on Trump.  You liked that argument enough to read it and click "Post Reply?"

Obama lied all the time.  He lied about Benghazi saying it was a spontaneous attack.  He lied about Fast and Furious that he didn't know.  He lied about the IRS targeting conservatives.  He lied about that he would leave Iraq and scale back in the middle east.  He lied about that he didn't know about Hillary's e-mail server.

I like how this I only gave you one Obama lie for your one Trump lie emerging as a standard after you didn't add any Trump quotes, LOL.

When Democrats say go down, you ask how far


----------



## kaz

Indeependent said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you think it's alright for you to play the amnesia game and misquote Trump.
Click to expand...


Trump did say Mexico would pay for the wall, I don't see that happening.

I don't care because I always thought we should build the wall and pay for our own security, but damn it, Bulldog wants Mexico to pay for the wall!


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
Click to expand...


You're just a chew toy.  If the discussion flipped parties, you'd flip sides.  Just like you don't care about Obama's endless string of actual lies


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm with you that I want the wall and I don't care if we pay for it.  Actually, I think we should pay for it.  I never got the making Mexico pay for it.  It's like trying to get Russia to pay for our missile defense program


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Kinda crazy of them, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Pretend we're talking about Obama's lies and how you don't give a shit about them.  You'll know when you do that successfully because you'll suddenly get it.

And Obama lied way more than Trump does, so you have a lot more material to work with.  Obama lied so much he couldn't even tell what the truth was anymore


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Kinda crazy of them, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's entirely rational and sensible.  The numskulls who oppose it are the ones acting crazy.
Click to expand...


A country without borders isn't a country.  Trump's right about that.

Bulldog's just engaging in the typical leftist voter recruitment program.  If today's Democrats wrote the text on the statue of liberty, it would read:

Give us your illegals, your dead, / your criminals, drug dealers and rapists yearning to live for free


----------



## danielpalos

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Kinda crazy of them, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's entirely rational and sensible.  The numskulls who oppose it are the ones acting crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A country without borders isn't a country.  Trump's right about that.
> 
> Bulldog's just engaging in the typical leftist voter recruitment program.  If today's Democrats wrote the text on the statue of liberty, it would read:
> 
> Give us your illegals, your dead, / your criminals, drug dealers and rapists yearning to live for free
Click to expand...

Our laws start at our borders.  All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told many times that Trump never said 2,000 miles long and you're playing "amnesia".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump lies far less than the media and Democrats do.  And I'm not defending Trump in that
Click to expand...




HaHaHaHa Sure you're not HaHaHaHa


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you think it's alright for you to play the amnesia game and misquote Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump did say Mexico would pay for the wall, I don't see that happening.
> 
> I don't care because I always thought we should build the wall and pay for our own security, but damn it, Bulldog wants Mexico to pay for the wall!
Click to expand...


It was one of Trump's main campaign promises.


----------



## BULLDOG

kaz said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just a chew toy.  If the discussion flipped parties, you'd flip sides.  Just like you don't care about Obama's endless string of actual lies
Click to expand...


Yes, I know that's what you think. As usual, you don't even know how wrong you are.


----------



## dblack

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> 
> 
> His supporters don't care if we have to pay for it, numskull.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Kinda crazy of them, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's entirely rational and sensible.  The numskulls who oppose it are the ones acting crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A country without borders isn't a country.  Trump's right about that.
> 
> Bulldog's just engaging in the typical leftist voter recruitment program.  If today's Democrats wrote the text on the statue of liberty, it would read:
> 
> Give us your illegals, your dead, / your criminals, drug dealers and rapists yearning to live for free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our laws start at our borders.  All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
Click to expand...


No way man. Embedded GPS chips for all citizens. It's the only way we can truly be safe!


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bulldog's a horn dog liar.  I didn't think there was any question on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump lies far less than the media and Democrats do.  And I'm not defending Trump in that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HaHaHaHa Sure you're not HaHaHaHa
Click to expand...


OMG, you didn't get it.  Now that's funny.

It has two legs and two arms and swings in trees ...

Bulldog:  Oh, oh, a banana

No ...  Let's try another.  It has eight sides, it's red, it has four white letters on it

Bulldog:  Oh, oh, a treehouse

Yeah ...


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most RWNJs say that when they can't back up their crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you think it's alright for you to play the amnesia game and misquote Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump did say Mexico would pay for the wall, I don't see that happening.
> 
> I don't care because I always thought we should build the wall and pay for our own security, but damn it, Bulldog wants Mexico to pay for the wall!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was one of Trump's main campaign promises.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Don't care, but it certainly was.

So if I I show you campaign promises that Obama didn't do, you're going to blast him for it like this Trump promise you don't want him to do, right?


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were destroyed in this one with the thread title.  No one cares that much who pays for the wall, that's a tiny issue compared to the real issue of getting the wall.
> 
> I'm sure you'll freak out at the tie Trump is wearing when he signs the bill to build the wall.
> 
> Speaking of your bizarre fixation on Ivanka, did she turn you down in your fantasies again last night?  It still cracks me up how your own fantasies just say eew and turn you down.  That's a serious permanent salute you have for the general over Ivanka though.  She is a hottie though, you're right about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters don't care who pays for the wall. They support him no matter how much he lies. That's only about a third of the country though. The rest see his lies as a bad thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think they should support him if he doesn't build the wall?  Wouldn't that mean he lied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he builds the wall, and Mexico is happy to pay for it, he won't be lying. If he builds it and we pay for it, he lied. If he doesn't build it at all, he lied. The only way it isn't a lie is if he does what he said.
> Trump Says Mexico Will Pay For The Wall And 'They'll Be Happy About It'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just a chew toy.  If the discussion flipped parties, you'd flip sides.  Just like you don't care about Obama's endless string of actual lies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know that's what you think. As usual, you don't even know how wrong you are.
Click to expand...


I'm wrong?  You wouldn't flip sides if we switched parties?  Cool.  So you

1)  Believe Obama kept all his campaign promises

2)  Will write as many posts criticizing Obama for every campaign promise that Obama didn't keep as you do for Trump

Agreed?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . Well the feds have failed miserably at their obligations, and that's why you are here wanting to spend more millions on these people ??  Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
Click to expand...


Legal fact.
We have a Federal Immigration Law, passed by Congress and signed into law, that defines parameters of who is classified as a citizen of this country.  Those who are not classified as a legal citizen under the Federal Law, are breaking the law.  ICE, through the authority given to them by the Federal Government, have the right to deport those who come here illegally and therefore not defined under the law as a citizen of this country.  States do NOT have rights that supercede Federal Law, *there is nothing written in the Constitution that gives legal authority to the states OVER their Federal Government.*

If you want to have a discussion on the Constitution, feel free... but come prepared.


----------



## P@triot

Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".


> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.


CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’


----------



## danielpalos

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal fact.
> We have a Federal Immigration Law, passed by Congress and signed into law, that defines parameters of who is classified as a citizen of this country.  Those who are not classified as a legal citizen under the Federal Law, are breaking the law.  ICE, through the authority given to them by the Federal Government, have the right to deport those who come here illegally and therefore not defined under the law as a citizen of this country.  States do NOT have rights that supercede Federal Law, *there is nothing written in the Constitution that gives legal authority to the states OVER their Federal Government.*
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on the Constitution, feel free... but come prepared.
Click to expand...

I cited our Constitution.  All foreign nationals having to do with our social justice system should have a federal id.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
Click to expand...

I have to question the math.  How much will they make during the same time; and, what will be the positive multiplier effect.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
Click to expand...

Our drug war is more expensive.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I have to question the math.  How much will they make during the same time; and, what will be the positive multiplier effect.


There won’t be, genius. You’re the one who is always whining about “the natural unemployment of capitalism”. Well, these people will either be unemployed (creating a “negative multiplier effect”) _or_ they will take jobs from Americans (creating a “negative multiplier effect”).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question the math.
Click to expand...

It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our drug war is more expensive.


A. Not it’s not

B. Our “War on Poverty” is more than a thousand times that of our “Drug War”

C. Nobody asked that, snowflake. This thread is about the wall and immigration. If you want to discuss the costs of the “Drug War”, create a thread about that.


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
Click to expand...


Another worshiper of fake news.  On the bright side, you can tell your Johns that you swallow.  They pay extra for that.

So during the election I wondered too how Trump was going to get Mexico to pay for the wall.  If you checked his plan like I did, you'd know that his plan was to tax wire transfers of money to Mexico.  It wasn't to get the Mexican parliament to send a check.

You never get tired of being stupid and uninformed, do you?  You also never get tired of your Ivanka rubber doll ...


----------



## oreo

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't care about legal status, only socialists do.  Capitalism merely needs capital to circulate.
> 
> A more market friendly public policy generate revenue instead of lose revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal fact.
> We have a Federal Immigration Law, passed by Congress and signed into law, that defines parameters of who is classified as a citizen of this country.  Those who are not classified as a legal citizen under the Federal Law, are breaking the law.  ICE, through the authority given to them by the Federal Government, have the right to deport those who come here illegally and therefore not defined under the law as a citizen of this country.  States do NOT have rights that supercede Federal Law, *there is nothing written in the Constitution that gives legal authority to the states OVER their Federal Government.*
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on the Constitution, feel free... but come prepared.
Click to expand...



Until Congress write a legal definition of what "sanctuary city" is and is voted upon and approved and signed into law, Sanctuary City is just a right wing buzz word to get you excited.  Without a legal definition there is no legal way to determine which city is sanctuary and which city isn't.  Then congress would have to pass another bill that was signed into law on what to do with Sanctuary cities.

Which is why Seatlle Washington sued Trump for calling them a sanctuary city.
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order


----------



## bripat9643

oreo said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . We are a country with borders.. End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal fact.
> We have a Federal Immigration Law, passed by Congress and signed into law, that defines parameters of who is classified as a citizen of this country.  Those who are not classified as a legal citizen under the Federal Law, are breaking the law.  ICE, through the authority given to them by the Federal Government, have the right to deport those who come here illegally and therefore not defined under the law as a citizen of this country.  States do NOT have rights that supercede Federal Law, *there is nothing written in the Constitution that gives legal authority to the states OVER their Federal Government.*
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on the Constitution, feel free... but come prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Until Congress write a legal definition of what "sanctuary city" is and is voted upon and approved and signed into law, Sanctuary City is just a right wing buzz word to get you excited.  Without a legal definition there is no legal way to determine which city is sanctuary and which city isn't.  Then congress would have to pass another bill that was signed into law on what to do with Sanctuary cities.
> 
> Which is why Seatlle Washington sued Trump for calling them a sanctuary city.
> Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Click to expand...

Any bill they pass will contain the definition, dumbass.


----------



## oreo

bripat9643 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foreign nationals in the US need federal id.  That is a federal obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, Section 9; only the right wing appeals to ignorance and fantasy, instead of legal facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal fact.
> We have a Federal Immigration Law, passed by Congress and signed into law, that defines parameters of who is classified as a citizen of this country.  Those who are not classified as a legal citizen under the Federal Law, are breaking the law.  ICE, through the authority given to them by the Federal Government, have the right to deport those who come here illegally and therefore not defined under the law as a citizen of this country.  States do NOT have rights that supercede Federal Law, *there is nothing written in the Constitution that gives legal authority to the states OVER their Federal Government.*
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on the Constitution, feel free... but come prepared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Until Congress write a legal definition of what "sanctuary city" is and is voted upon and approved and signed into law, Sanctuary City is just a right wing buzz word to get you excited.  Without a legal definition there is no legal way to determine which city is sanctuary and which city isn't.  Then congress would have to pass another bill that was signed into law on what to do with Sanctuary cities.
> 
> Which is why Seatlle Washington sued Trump for calling them a sanctuary city.
> Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any bill they pass will contain the definition, dumbass.
Click to expand...

\]

Well dumbass NONE exist, the only thing that exists is the word Sanctuary City--so you can pee your pants over it every time it's mentioned.  Until Sanctuary City is legally defined by congress, there is no legal way to determine which cities are  sanctuary and which ones aren't.

Wanna bet that never happens?


----------



## JakeStarkey

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question the math.  How much will they make during the same time; and, what will be the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> There won’t be, genius. You’re the one who is always whining about “the natural unemployment of capitalism”. Well, these people will either be unemployed (creating a “negative multiplier effect”) _or_ they will take jobs from Americans (creating a “negative multiplier effect”).
Click to expand...

(1) If they are not legally qualified for jobs, their unemployment means nothing.  (2) Illegals almost never take a job a citizen will take.

Anybody saying or implying that Trump did not say Trump would pay for the wall is lying, writing fake news, and pushing an agenda in the illegal immigration debate.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question the math.  How much will they make during the same time; and, what will be the positive multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> There won’t be, genius. You’re the one who is always whining about “the natural unemployment of capitalism”. Well, these people will either be unemployed (creating a “negative multiplier effect”) _or_ they will take jobs from Americans (creating a “negative multiplier effect”).
Click to expand...

yet, cheap labor helps the rich get richer faster.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
Click to expand...

did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our drug war is more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> A. Not it’s not
> 
> B. Our “War on Poverty” is more than a thousand times that of our “Drug War”
> 
> C. Nobody asked that, snowflake. This thread is about the wall and immigration. If you want to discuss the costs of the “Drug War”, create a thread about that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  The costs simply are not measured, adequately.  

Our War on Poverty; all we needed was equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.  Who's fault is it, the right wing keeps coming up with socialism on a national basis; instead of equal protection of the law, as a natural and individual right.

and, regarding immigration; why are we losing money at our borders? 

only lousy capitalists whine about taxes instead of make money.


----------



## JakeStarkey

There will no wall.

Illegal immigration is down.

The OP is way off in numbers.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
Click to expand...

It'll stop most of the drug smuggling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"cost $148.3 billion"

Stupid, shameless lie meant to fool the fools...


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll stop most of the drug smuggling.
Click to expand...

with the latest advances in catapult and drone technologies; right wing fantasy is the Only place, that works.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Washington Times, the CBO said last week that legalizing the more than 2 million Dreamers in the U.S. would cost taxpayers nearly $26 billion over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll stop most of the drug smuggling.
Click to expand...

Nope, not in the slightest.


----------



## JakeStarkey

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll stop most of the drug smuggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with the latest advances in catapult and drone technologies; right wing fantasy is the Only place, that works.
Click to expand...

Drone tech makes any far right resistance in America impossible.


----------



## Siete

*Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion*


Trumps wall - 

well Congress gave him 1 Billion to repair the Bush fence so unless he can crap another 20 billion  THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.  

DEAL WITH IT.


----------



## danielpalos

JakeStarkey said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll stop most of the drug smuggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with the latest advances in catapult and drone technologies; right wing fantasy is the Only place, that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drone tech makes any far right resistance in America impossible.
Click to expand...

we could end our drug war and make money; but that would require Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> yet, cheap labor helps the rich get richer faster.


And *jobs* help the poor get wealthier faster.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?


Only idiot progressives need to study a “technology” that has been around for thousands and thousands of years. 

Walls work - just ask the Vatican. Walls work - just ask the Obama. Walls work - just ask China. Walls work - just ask Israel.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we could end our drug war and make money; but that would require Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.


And unfortunately, the ignorant left keeps blocking capitalism in favor of their idiotic national socialism.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




How much GDP does the immigrant community create for our economy per year?


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.


Forgive us if we have *0* faith in your predictions...


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.


Forgive us if we have *0* faith in your predictions...


----------



## otto105

P@triot said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive us if we have *0* faith in your predictions...
> 
> View attachment 192618
Click to expand...


Siete meant the two coming elections.


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.


Forgive us if we have *0* faith in your predictions...


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.


Everyone...please listen to Siete. He has a history of being very wise!


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> THERE AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL exactly like Ive been telling you idiots since day 1.


Everyone...please listen to Siete. He has a history of being very wise!


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considerably more than *President Trump's* wall. And this is just the cost to legalize the "Dreamers".
> CBO reveals the astronomical cost taxpayers would pay to legalize ‘Dreamers’
> 
> 
> 
> I have to question the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the CBO, my little parasite. The numbers are spot-on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll stop most of the drug smuggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with the latest advances in catapult and drone technologies; right wing fantasy is the Only place, that works.
Click to expand...

ooOOO target practice.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet, cheap labor helps the rich get richer faster.
> 
> 
> 
> And *jobs* help the poor get wealthier faster.
Click to expand...

depends on the jobs.  low wage jobs have to be subsidized with tax money.  that means, the rich are still getting a bailout simply to make a profit.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> did they also estimate how effective the wall would be?
> 
> 
> 
> Only idiot progressives need to study a “technology” that has been around for thousands and thousands of years.
> 
> Walls work - just ask the Vatican. Walls work - just ask the Obama. Walls work - just ask China. Walls work - just ask Israel.
Click to expand...

should i invest in flying squirrel suits?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could end our drug war and make money; but that would require Capitalism, not socialism on a national basis.
> 
> 
> 
> And unfortunately, the ignorant left keeps blocking capitalism in favor of their idiotic national socialism.
Click to expand...

lol.  the socialism required to provide for the general welfare is enumerated in our Constitution.

the power to provide for the general warfare, is not.


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much GDP does the immigrant community create for our economy per year?
Click to expand...

Not as much as they consume.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much GDP does the immigrant community create for our economy per year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as much as they consume.
Click to expand...



So you either can't or won't answer the question.


I think that tips the answer...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

P@triot said:


> And *jobs* help the poor get wealthier faster.


Not when the wages of those jobs stagnate and even decrease in real dollars, they don't.


----------



## P@triot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *jobs* help the poor get wealthier faster.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the wages of those jobs stagnate and even decrease in real dollars, they don't.
Click to expand...

No...really...they do.


----------



## P@triot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *jobs* help the poor get wealthier faster.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the wages of those jobs stagnate and even decrease in real dollars, they don't.
Click to expand...

Listening to lazy socialists try to make a case for why they shouldn’t have to hold a job and support themselves is comedy gold.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

P@triot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And *jobs* help the poor get wealthier faster.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the wages of those jobs stagnate and even decrease in real dollars, they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...really...they do.
Click to expand...

oh, haha, I see what you are saying. 8 an hour is better than 5 an hour.

You're a pretty deep thinker.


----------



## P@triot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> oh, haha, I see what you are saying. 8 an hour is better than 5 an hour.


$8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour. And that’s without taking into consideration that $8 per hour becomes $10 per hour becomes $15 per hour as said employee gains raises and promotions.

All *realities* that you can’t bring your progressive brainwashed mind to accept.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

P@triot said:


> 8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour.


No, see, that is where you are wrong, really. It's not much better at all. This is a simple fact.  People still qualify for and have to have government assistance, at 8 per hour. These people aren't much participating in the economy at all, and they can't if they tried. They have zero security. That 8/hr job? Good luck keeping it, when the car you can afford for $8/hr breaks down.  Etc., Etc.

So no, it is not "exponentially better". And this is a simple economic concept that is not "liberal" in the least.


----------



## P@triot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> No, see, that is where you are wrong, really. It's not much better at all. This is a simple fact.  People still qualify for and have to have government assistance, at 8 per hour. These people aren't much participating in the economy at all, and they can't if they tried. They have zero security. That 8/hr job? Good luck keeping it, when the car you can afford for $8/hr breaks down.  Etc., Etc.
> 
> So no, it is not "exponentially better". And this is a simple economic concept that is not "liberal" in the least.
Click to expand...

Again, that $8 per hour job becomes a $10 per hour job, becomes a $15 per hour job over time due to raises and promotions. No matter how much you want to ignore economics and reality, you can’t.

And if their car breaks down, they can get another $8 per hour car. Or walk (as MANY people do - even for many miles). Or they can have a family member, friend, or neighbor drop them off.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh, haha, I see what you are saying. 8 an hour is better than 5 an hour.
> 
> 
> 
> $8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour. And that’s without taking into consideration that $8 per hour becomes $10 per hour becomes $15 per hour as said employee gains raises and promotions.
> 
> All *realities* that you can’t bring your progressive brainwashed mind to accept.
Click to expand...

except, we are dealing a statutory minimum wage.  it is the minimum wage, regardless.

Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> No, see, that is where you are wrong, really. It's not much better at all. This is a simple fact.  People still qualify for and have to have government assistance, at 8 per hour. These people aren't much participating in the economy at all, and they can't if they tried. They have zero security. That 8/hr job? Good luck keeping it, when the car you can afford for $8/hr breaks down.  Etc., Etc.
> 
> So no, it is not "exponentially better". And this is a simple economic concept that is not "liberal" in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that $8 per hour job becomes a $10 per hour job, becomes a $15 per hour job over time due to raises and promotions. No matter how much you want to ignore economics and reality, you can’t.
> 
> And if their car breaks down, they can get another $8 per hour car. Or walk (as MANY people do - even for many miles). Or they can have a family member, friend, or neighbor drop them off.
Click to expand...

Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.  

Compensation for that, solves Labor's problem in a market friendly manner.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.


Only for those with an unnatural rate of laziness and incompetence.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those with an unnatural rate of laziness and incompetence.
Click to expand...

The so-called "natural rate of unemployment" is exactly proportion to the natural percentage of deadbeats and moochers in society.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
Click to expand...

Seattle is beating the national average.  And, making even less is merely, income redistribution that simply helps the rich get richer faster, by subsidizing low wages with social services; so right wingers can whine about taxes and try to cut social services for the poor.

Chaos, is the only thing, right wing policy actually delivers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those with an unnatural rate of laziness and incompetence.
Click to expand...

Capitalists need that "laziness and incompetence" and Natural rate of unemployment for their bottom line, not Labor's bottom line.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those with an unnatural rate of laziness and incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "natural rate of unemployment" is exactly proportion to the natural percentage of deadbeats and moochers in society.
Click to expand...

simple public policy that benefits the rich, at the expense of the poor.


----------



## BrokeLoser

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> No, see, that is where you are wrong, really. It's not much better at all. This is a simple fact.  People still qualify for and have to have government assistance, at 8 per hour. These people aren't much participating in the economy at all, and they can't if they tried. They have zero security. That 8/hr job? Good luck keeping it, when the car you can afford for $8/hr breaks down.  Etc., Etc.
> 
> So no, it is not "exponentially better". And this is a simple economic concept that is not "liberal" in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that $8 per hour job becomes a $10 per hour job, becomes a $15 per hour job over time due to raises and promotions. No matter how much you want to ignore economics and reality, you can’t.
> 
> And if their car breaks down, they can get another $8 per hour car. Or walk (as MANY people do - even for many miles). Or they can have a family member, friend, or neighbor drop them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> Compensation for that, solves Labor's problem in a market friendly manner.
Click to expand...


Let’s eradicate 12-40 million illegal wetbacks that we spoon feed and then consider your retarded idea....Whatta ya say?


----------



## danielpalos

BrokeLoser said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 per hour is exponentially better than $0 per hour.
> 
> 
> 
> No, see, that is where you are wrong, really. It's not much better at all. This is a simple fact.  People still qualify for and have to have government assistance, at 8 per hour. These people aren't much participating in the economy at all, and they can't if they tried. They have zero security. That 8/hr job? Good luck keeping it, when the car you can afford for $8/hr breaks down.  Etc., Etc.
> 
> So no, it is not "exponentially better". And this is a simple economic concept that is not "liberal" in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that $8 per hour job becomes a $10 per hour job, becomes a $15 per hour job over time due to raises and promotions. No matter how much you want to ignore economics and reality, you can’t.
> 
> And if their car breaks down, they can get another $8 per hour car. Or walk (as MANY people do - even for many miles). Or they can have a family member, friend, or neighbor drop them off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> Compensation for that, solves Labor's problem in a market friendly manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let’s eradicate 12-40 million illegal wetbacks that we spoon feed and then consider your retarded idea....Whatta ya say?
Click to expand...

Prohibition has never worked, in the entire history of our Republic. 

Why not simply make money from from each and every foreign national in the US by requiring a federal id.


----------



## regent

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those with an unnatural rate of laziness and incompetence.
Click to expand...

Or unless the Republicans have caused one of their depressions/recessions then it gets a little sticky, at least until the Democrats, as usual,  are called in to aid the nation,


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> Or unless the Republicans have caused one of their depressions/recessions then it gets a little sticky, at least until the Democrats, as usual,  are called in to aid the nation,


If you look at history - the Dumbocrats are almost always in control when the bottom falls out of the economy (after all, that’s what *failed* left-wing policy does).

FDR and the Dumbocrats oversaw the Great Depression. Jimmy Carter and the Dumbocrats collapsed the economy in the late 1970’s. And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had been in control of BOTH chambers for two years when the economy tanked in late 2008 (upon news that the American people had elected a radical marxist to the White House).

But hey, you haven’t let facts get in the way of your false narratives yet on USMB, so why start now?


----------



## DOTR

A wall has other benefits as well...like keeping out democrat voters.


----------



## KJohnson

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​





bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


*Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens*




*Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens*




*Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration *






*Federal*
The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.



*FEDERAL SPENDING*
The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.

FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.

Federal Education - $1.6 Billion
Federal Medical Costs - $17.1 Billion
Federal Justice Expenditures - $13.1 Billion
Federal Welfare Programs - $5.8 Billion
Total Federal Expenditures - $45.8 Billion
*FEDERAL TAXES*
Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.



FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns.

*Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.*

*As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.*


----------



## KJohnson

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here


No..DEMOCRATS WANT THEIR VOTES...THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE. And that's why there are sanctuary cities too.  They're harvesting votes while the taxpayers pay the tab supporting them. Anyone believing they're supporting these people and gang members in those cities spread out all over the U.S. just because they feel kind hearted are so naive it's amazing they know how to tie their shoes.  Although the left and their fake biased media keep hiding the facts I just happen to have saved a few.

Voter fraud:


New evidence of voter fraud in NC alleged

California AB-60 Driver's License | DMV.ORG

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/04/04/california-million-drivers-licenses-undocumented-immigrants/


'Voter fraud'? California man finds dozens of ballots stacked outside home


Florida Elections Worker: I Was Fired For Witnessing Possible Absentee Ballot Fraud


Election Fraud? Registered Voters Outnumber the Eligible, in 462 Counties | National Review


2 Investigators: Chicago Voters Cast Ballots From Beyond The Grave

Secretary of State says she has evidence of 3 illegal noncitizen votes in 2016, offers more details about voter fraud probe


----------



## danielpalos

KJohnson said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Federal*
> The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> *FEDERAL SPENDING*
> The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.
> 
> FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.
> 
> Federal Education - $1.6 Billion
> Federal Medical Costs - $17.1 Billion
> Federal Justice Expenditures - $13.1 Billion
> Federal Welfare Programs - $5.8 Billion
> Total Federal Expenditures - $45.8 Billion
> *FEDERAL TAXES*
> Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.
> 
> 
> 
> FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns.
> 
> *Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.*
> 
> *As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.*
Click to expand...

yet, the rich are getting richer faster.  a positive multiplier effect must account for some of that.


----------



## bripat9643

DOTR said:


> A wall has other benefits as well...like keeping out democrat voters.


Obviously, that's why Democrats hate the idea.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall has other benefits as well...like keeping out democrat voters.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's why Democrats hate the idea.
Click to expand...

not at all; the right wing is all about cutting services for the poor, so the rich can get richer, faster.


----------



## dblack

I don't understand the Republican position on this. If their main concern with illegal immigration is illegals getting welfare, why not just close that loophole? Wouldn't that be a lot easier, and cheaper, and more effective, than building a fucking wall?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

DOTR said:


> A wall has other benefits as well...like keeping out democrat voters.




That's gotten to be one of the dumbest lies RWNJs parrot. Get a clue.

About the cost of the wall, its up to something like $33BILLION now. 

Plus the cost of the troops. 

 Don't tell trumpy but the troops cannot look at Mexico. 

National Guard Has Eyes on the Border. But They’re Not Watching Mexico.

National Guard Troops Can Patrol US-Mexico Border But Can’t Actually Look Across It


----------



## OnePercenter

Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.


----------



## DOTR

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall has other benefits as well...like keeping out democrat voters.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's why Democrats hate the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all; the right wing is all about cutting services for the poor, so the rich can get richer, faster.
Click to expand...


   You are welcome to fill in the gap. Open that wallet.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.



The wall is a better solution.  It's always better if the illegals never get into the country rather than trying to evict them after the fact.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is a better solution.  It's always better if the illegals never get into the country rather than trying to evict them after the fact.
Click to expand...


Your countrymen/women also need to be extracted.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/...-under-the-radar-in-u-s-as-illegal-immigrants


----------



## danielpalos

OnePercenter said:


> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.


socialism on a national basis?


----------



## danielpalos

DOTR said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall has other benefits as well...like keeping out democrat voters.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's why Democrats hate the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all; the right wing is all about cutting services for the poor, so the rich can get richer, faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to fill in the gap. Open that wallet.
Click to expand...

All it takes, is Money.


----------



## OnePercenter

danielpalos said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
Click to expand...


Enforcing law.


----------



## Thinker101

OnePercenter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
Click to expand...


Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.


----------



## OnePercenter

Thinker101 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
Click to expand...


Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.


----------



## Thinker101

OnePercenter said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
Click to expand...



LOL...good one.


----------



## DOTR

danielpalos said:


> All it takes, is Money.



  Other peoples money though right?


----------



## rightwinger

Doesn’t matter

We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves

Mexico will pay for it


----------



## danielpalos

OnePercenter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
Click to expand...

that's all Hitler did.


----------



## danielpalos

DOTR said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes, is Money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other peoples money though right?
Click to expand...

who doesn't mind making their own?


----------



## OnePercenter

danielpalos said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's all Hitler did.
Click to expand...


Hitler enforced immigration laws in the US?


----------



## OnePercenter

Thinker101 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...good one.
Click to expand...


Why don't you compare and contrast numbers of Obama and tRump.


----------



## Norman

OnePercenter said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you compare and contrast numbers of Obama and tRump.
Click to expand...


Under the God-Emperor illegal immigration by border crossing is down almost 90%.

Obama prevented the border security from upholding the law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

OnePercenter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrest, trial, incarceration for employers that knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Then you don't need a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's all Hitler did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler enforced immigration laws in the US?
Click to expand...

Do you believe in Capitalism over Socialism on a National basis or not, right winger.


----------



## danielpalos

Norman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you compare and contrast numbers of Obama and tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the God-Emperor illegal immigration by border crossing is down almost 90%.
> 
> Obama prevented the border security from upholding the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Let's audit the friction to our economy; specifically the agricultural sector.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it



Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.


----------



## Thinker101

OnePercenter said:


> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> socialism on a national basis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you compare and contrast numbers of Obama and tRump.
Click to expand...


Compare and contrast number?!  What the hell for?  I can just drive through my neighborhood, drive through the city, watch the news (not CNN) ....dumbass.


----------



## Thinker101

rightwinger said:


> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it



We, meaning you'll go out and find a bunch of Mexicans to tear down the Great Wall, and not pay them...dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Thinker101 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, meaning you'll go out and find a bunch of Mexicans to tear down the Great Wall, and not pay them...dumbass.
Click to expand...

Meaning he won't do a thing except throw a major hissy fit and then sit on his hands.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
Click to expand...

The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.


----------



## OnePercenter

Norman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you compare and contrast numbers of Obama and tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the God-Emperor illegal immigration by border crossing is down almost 90%.
> 
> Obama prevented the border security from upholding the law of the land.
Click to expand...



If illegal immigration by border crossing is down almost 90% why aren't we rolling in jobs?

Obama deported more illegal aliens than any other sitting President and raided more businesses breaking the law by hiring illegals (including Canadians)


----------



## OnePercenter

Thinker101 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinker101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcing law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, we all know how well liberals follow and/or enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama did. He holds the record on enforcing immigration laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you compare and contrast numbers of Obama and tRump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compare and contrast number?!  What the hell for?  I can just drive through my neighborhood, drive through the city, watch the news (not CNN) ....dumbass.
Click to expand...


It would prove you are wrong.


----------



## OnePercenter

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
Click to expand...


It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
Click to expand...


Easy come, easy go

Tear down that wall


----------



## rightwinger

OnePercenter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
Click to expand...



There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
Click to expand...


Walls are easy to destroy

As soon as Fat Donnie is gone


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
Click to expand...



Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?


NOt too impressive there.


----------



## danielpalos

OnePercenter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
Click to expand...

the Great Wall of China is generating revenue now; thank goodness for Ancient Chinese secrets.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
Click to expand...

It’s an ugly wall anyway

Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
Click to expand...



All the more "Reason" for you to tear it down. Too bad you are afraid of Trump.


BUT, you are right to be afraid. Fear is the rational response to a real danger.


And talk is one thing. You don't want to actually take action against TRUmp.


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
Click to expand...

Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!


----------



## OnePercenter

rightwinger said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
Click to expand...


I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.


----------



## OnePercenter

danielpalos said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
Click to expand...


All employer's should pay their employees a living wage.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
Click to expand...

Do you take pride in being a total douche?


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
Click to expand...

We'll be selling tickets to use your ticket holders for target practice.


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn’t matter
> 
> We will tear down the Great Wall of Trump as soon as he leaves
> 
> Mexico will pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
Click to expand...



Sending people home is not a Holocaust.


----------



## bripat9643

Correll said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
Click to expand...

Keeping them out of our country is also not a holocaust.  

One has to marvel at the hyperbolic histrionics of the left.


----------



## basquebromance

don't act like Trump's a nut for wanting the wall. that was the chant at every rally. the voters voted for the wall! the american people desperately want it!


----------



## rightwinger

danielpalos said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy come, easy go
> 
> Tear down that wall
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
Click to expand...

Tearing down the wall will create jobs


----------



## rightwinger

basquebromance said:


> don't act like Trump's a nut for wanting the wall. that was the chant at every rally. the voters voted for the wall! the american people desperately want it!


More voted against it


----------



## basquebromance

rightwinger said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't act like Trump's a nut for wanting the wall. that was the chant at every rally. the voters voted for the wall! the american people desperately want it!
> 
> 
> 
> More voted against it
Click to expand...


tens of thousands more people attended Trump rallies than Crooked Hillary rallies. no one wants to be associated with a crook


----------



## rightwinger

basquebromance said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't act like Trump's a nut for wanting the wall. that was the chant at every rally. the voters voted for the wall! the american people desperately want it!
> 
> 
> 
> More voted against it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tens of thousands more people attended Trump rallies than Crooked Hillary rallies. no one wants to be associated with a crook
Click to expand...

I saw them all at his inauguration


----------



## Correll

bripat9643 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keeping them out of our country is also not a holocaust.
> 
> One has to marvel at the hyperbolic histrionics of the left.
Click to expand...



They are complete assholes.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are portions of wall there already. What you waiting for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
Click to expand...



Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls are easy to destroy
> 
> As soon as Fat Donnie is gone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.
Click to expand...


We are already seeing the impact of the loss of the Mexican workforce 

Mr Trump.......Tear down that WALL!


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are already seeing the impact of the loss of the Mexican workforce
> 
> Mr Trump.......Tear down that WALL!
Click to expand...

You mean our current low unemployment rate?


----------



## hjmick

Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill

_Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...

_
I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You afraid of him? Need to wait for some weak punk that won't do anything as you break the law?
> 
> 
> NOt too impressive there.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are already seeing the impact of the loss of the Mexican workforce
> 
> Mr Trump.......Tear down that WALL!
Click to expand...



You referring to the uptick in wages? 


It is too small. We need to stay the course.

BUILD THE WALL. DEPORT THE ILLEGAL. FUCK THE EMPLOYERS.


----------



## Correll

hjmick said:


> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...




Excellent find. I will donate if it will be used to build Wall.


Why to fucking GO, Rep Black.  FUCK THE DEEP STATE, GO TO THE PEOPLE!!!


----------



## OnePercenter

Correll said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for revealing your open-borders cloven hoof.
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
Click to expand...


Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses. 

Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keeping them out of our country is also not a holocaust.
> 
> One has to marvel at the hyperbolic histrionics of the left.
Click to expand...


Are you writing of the 100k+ Canadian illegal aliens in the US? Don't you want them back?


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are already seeing the impact of the loss of the Mexican workforce
> 
> Mr Trump.......Tear down that WALL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean our current low unemployment rate?
Click to expand...


In 2016, the unemployment rate in Canada was at around *6.98 percent*.


----------



## OnePercenter

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s an ugly wall anyway
> 
> Fat Donnie promised us a Big Beautiful Wall
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are already seeing the impact of the loss of the Mexican workforce
> 
> Mr Trump.......Tear down that WALL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You referring to the uptick in wages?
> 
> 
> It is too small. We need to stay the course.
> 
> BUILD THE WALL. DEPORT THE ILLEGAL. FUCK THE EMPLOYERS.
Click to expand...


*FUCK THE EMPLOYERS.
*
Except, of course, tRump. Trump wins visas to hire 70 foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
Click to expand...




Yeah, I'm not going to try to have a serious conversation with some asshole who can't use the President's actual name, 

so piss off.


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists generate revenue, from Inception!  The Great Walls of America!
> 
> 
> 
> Tearing down the wall will create jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not as many as burying the bodies of the attackers will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are already seeing the impact of the loss of the Mexican workforce
> 
> Mr Trump.......Tear down that WALL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You referring to the uptick in wages?
> 
> 
> It is too small. We need to stay the course.
> 
> BUILD THE WALL. DEPORT THE ILLEGAL. FUCK THE EMPLOYERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *FUCK THE EMPLOYERS.
> *
> Except, of course, tRump. Trump wins visas to hire 70 foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago
Click to expand...



If you wanted to have a serious conversation, you would not be talking like a moronic child.


----------



## rightwinger

hjmick said:


> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...



Let the suckers pay for their own wall

Mexico sure isn’t going to pay


----------



## Siete

wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.

you see a wall?

Hell no - and you aint gonna see no damn wall either.


----------



## bripat9643

OnePercenter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Walls of America, could be generating revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
Click to expand...


We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
Click to expand...



Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.


They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.


----------



## Siete

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

Siete said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Flashback June 2015: Bill Maher & His Audience Laugh At Ann Coulter For Saying Trump Could Win Nomination


----------



## Siete

Correll said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flashback June 2015: Bill Maher & His Audience Laugh At Ann Coulter For Saying Trump Could Win Nomination
Click to expand...


flash back to trumps tax cut bill ... Congress gave him money to repair the Bush  FENCE and money for security that 43 had already designated decades ago.

AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL -  deal with it idiots.


----------



## Correll

Siete said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flashback June 2015: Bill Maher & His Audience Laugh At Ann Coulter For Saying Trump Could Win Nomination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flash back to trumps tax cut bill ... Congress gave him money to repair the Bush  FENCE and money for security that 43 had already designated decades ago.
> 
> AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL -  deal with it idiots.
Click to expand...



You lefties have proven to be unreliable oracles.


----------



## P@triot

Not having a secure border is *not* an option. Thank God *President Trump* was elected President of the United States.

NC Police Find $90 Million in Meth Hidden in Truck Fuel Tank Driven by Illegal Alien


----------



## OnePercenter

Correll said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm not going to try to have a serious conversation with some asshole who can't use the President's actual name,
> 
> so piss off.
Click to expand...


So you can't refute my post, and you use English slang which tells me that you're probably not an American.


----------



## Aldo Raine

hjmick said:


> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...




  What is Mexico donating?


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall. you see a wall? Hell no - *and you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.


Forgive us if we ignore your “predictions”. After all, you’re the same nitwit who declared (over and over and over) that Hitlery Clinton would be the next President of the United States.


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> Hell no - and you aint gonna see no damn wall either.


Because you have such a great track record with predictions?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
Click to expand...

They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie


----------



## hjmick

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
Click to expand...



Hell, at this point I'm almost surprised they don't build one themselves to keep him out of Mexico...


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will be an atrocity like the Berlin Wall and The Great Wall of China.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.
Click to expand...


Your racist rant is noted.


----------



## kaz

OnePercenter said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your racist rant is noted.
Click to expand...


Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid


----------



## kaz

hjmick said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, at this point I'm almost surprised they don't build one themselves to keep him out of Mexico...
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

Siete said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flashback June 2015: Bill Maher & His Audience Laugh At Ann Coulter For Saying Trump Could Win Nomination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> flash back to trumps tax cut bill ... Congress gave him money to repair the Bush  FENCE and money for security that 43 had already designated decades ago.
> 
> AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL -  deal with it idiots.
Click to expand...


As long as they vote for welfare, you're happy as a clam ...


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, at this point I'm almost surprised they don't build one themselves to keep him out of Mexico...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You're welcome, but don't quit your day job ...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
Click to expand...

a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism has a _natural_ rate of unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those with an unnatural rate of laziness and incompetence.
Click to expand...

Only in right wing, fallacy of false Cause induced fantasy.


----------



## basquebromance

the wall is not that expensive. we can afford it! in fact, we can't not afford it!


----------



## Imissbush

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.


----------



## Imissbush

basquebromance said:


> the wall is not that expensive. we can afford it! in fact, we can't not afford it!


It's never going to happen. Ha ha


----------



## bripat9643

Imissbush said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
Click to expand...


When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.



If that's the complaint, why not just turn off the spigot?


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the complaint, why not just turn off the spigot?
Click to expand...


The courts have ruled that we can't turn it off for illegals.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the complaint, why not just turn off the spigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled that we can't turn it off for illegals.
Click to expand...


Link? That sounds insane.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the complaint, why not just turn off the spigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled that we can't turn it off for illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link? That sounds insane.
Click to expand...

The 9th Circus court overruled California's amendment that didn't allow illegals to send their kids to public schools or get medicaid.


----------



## Imissbush

bripat9643 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant of economics.


----------



## rightwinger

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
Click to expand...


That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
Click to expand...

Most immigrants work very hard
Always have


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the complaint, why not just turn off the spigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled that we can't turn it off for illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link? That sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 9th Circus court overruled California's amendment that didn't allow illegals to send their kids to public schools or get medicaid.
Click to expand...


Uh... link? I googled and didn't find anything. In any case, that's one court. In one state. The Republicans control Congress. 

Frankly, the excuse makes no sense. If we know someone is here illegally, we arrest them, right?


----------



## Imissbush

rightwinger said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
Click to expand...

There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation


----------



## bripat9643

Imissbush said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ignorant of economics.
Click to expand...

No I'm not.  Illegals don't contribute a thing to my welfare.  They cost me money.


----------



## bripat9643

Imissbush said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
Click to expand...

Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
Click to expand...

You would think so
Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> 
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
Click to expand...

They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
Click to expand...


I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one

Show the number of corporations hiring illegals


----------



## Siete

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> 
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
Click to expand...


bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..


----------



## rightwinger

Siete said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> 
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
Click to expand...

He couldn’t compete with illegals

They actually work


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> the wall is not that expensive. we can afford it! in fact, we can't not afford it!


Great Walls of America Tax Rates!  We can afford it.


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
Click to expand...

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage nation wide should be analogous to Seattle.

And should help with this problem in a fine, capital manner:

U.S. has record 6 million job openings, even as 6.8 million Americans are looking for jobs


----------



## danielpalos

Imissbush said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
Click to expand...

Social services in the US cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum provides market based incentive and an upward pressure on wages.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
Click to expand...

That is why the left has a solution, a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, Because social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the complaint, why not just turn off the spigot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled that we can't turn it off for illegals.
Click to expand...

Natural rights, what a concept, right, right wingers.  

almost make one wonder why we have Any gang problems, at all.


----------



## rightwinger

danielpalos said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage nation wide should be analogous to Seattle.
> 
> And should help with this problem in a fine, capital manner:
> 
> U.S. has record 6 million job openings, even as 6.8 million Americans are looking for jobs
Click to expand...


You have only six million total job openings nationwide
Hardly enough for minimum wage workers to get second or third jobs


----------



## danielpalos

rightwinger said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage nation wide should be analogous to Seattle.
> 
> And should help with this problem in a fine, capital manner:
> 
> U.S. has record 6 million job openings, even as 6.8 million Americans are looking for jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have only six million total job openings nationwide
> Hardly enough for minimum wage workers to get second or third jobs
Click to expand...

Increasing the minimum wage must be creating demand in Seattle; let's do a followup study in Seattle.

Why do they have such low unemployment in a City.


----------



## bripat9643

Siete said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> 
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
Click to expand...

 I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages


How do you figure? Wages are *up* under *President Trump*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a flawed study?


Once again we see the left simply unable to accept *reality*. 

There is nothing “flawed”. The homeless situation in Seattle is a reality - that’s why the city was introducing more taxes. They openly admitted it was to “address homelessness”.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



so much for the people who keep saying the wall is such a bad idea.LOL


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a flawed study?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we see the left simply unable to accept *reality*.
> 
> There is nothing “flawed”. The homeless situation in Seattle is a reality - that’s why the city was introducing more taxes. They openly admitted it was to “address homelessness”.
Click to expand...

The reality is, right wing fixations don't seem to be applying; why is unemployment so low in the City, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


----------



## danielpalos

LA RAM FAN said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so much for the people who keep saying the wall is such a bad idea.LOL
Click to expand...

lol.  right wingers prefer their socialism on a national basis at every opportunity.

we could be solving our illegal problem on a permanent basis via applied Capitalism; coincidence or conspiracy, the right wing eschews Capitalism for their socialism on a national basis, at Every opportunity.


----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure? Wages are *up* under *President Trump*.
Click to expand...

Burger flipping jobs


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The reality is, right wing fixations don't seem to be applying; why is unemployment so low in the City, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.


This has been explained to you already. The people in Seattle are becoming more homeless than before the increase because their employers have cut hours to offset the new costs.

That’s why homelessness has INCREASED in Seattle despite the increase in minimum wage. That’s what left-wing policy does - it makes the poor poorer and creates nothing but failure.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Burger flipping jobs


We’re not discussing your “career”. Nobody asked about you. Back to the facts - wages are *up* under *President Trump* and the Republicans. Unemployment is down.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, right wing fixations don't seem to be applying; why is unemployment so low in the City, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you already. The people in Seattle are bringing home LESS than before the increase because their employers have cut hours to offset the new costs.
> 
> That’s why homelessness has INCREASED in Seattle despite the increase in minimum wage. That’s what left-wing policy does - it makes the poor poorer and creates nothing but failure.
Click to expand...

A flawed study?  Why is the unemployment rate so low, with so many employers, cutting back.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, right wing fixations don't seem to be applying; why is unemployment so low in the City, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you already. The people in Seattle are bringing home LESS than before the increase because their employers have cut hours to offset the new costs.
> 
> That’s why homelessness has INCREASED in Seattle despite the increase in minimum wage. That’s what left-wing policy does - it makes the poor poorer and creates nothing but failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A flawed study?  Why is the unemployment rate so low, with so many employers, cutting back.
Click to expand...

They aren’t cutting jobs. Nobody said that. They are cutting _hours_.

A flawed ability to think, Daniel?


----------



## danielpalos

Let's tax advertised jobs until they are filled, for better metrics from the private sector.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, right wing fixations don't seem to be applying; why is unemployment so low in the City, with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you already. The people in Seattle are bringing home LESS than before the increase because their employers have cut hours to offset the new costs.
> 
> That’s why homelessness has INCREASED in Seattle despite the increase in minimum wage. That’s what left-wing policy does - it makes the poor poorer and creates nothing but failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A flawed study?  Why is the unemployment rate so low, with so many employers, cutting back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren’t cutting jobs. Nobody said that. They are cutting _hours_.
> 
> A flawed ability to think, Daniel?
Click to expand...

cutting hours affects level of employment, only flawed studies don't take into account, underpayment under Any form of Capitalism.

How are capitalists cutting hours, with such low unemployment?  Doesn't that affect turnover.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> cutting hours affects level of employment


No snowflake, it doesn’t. Having your hours doesn’t cut back doesn’t categorize one as “unemployed”.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> cutting hours affects level of employment, only flawed studies don't take into account, underpayment under Any form of Capitalism.


Oh wait....so you’re now *admitting* that unemployment isn’t nearly as low in Seattle as you’ve been claiming?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only flawed studies don't take into account, underpayment under Any form of Capitalism.


Seriously man...if you keep this up....Vladimir Putin is going to put a bullet in the back of your head. You can’t be so blatant about being a paid Russian troll. You need to brush up on your English and your grammar.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> cutting hours affects level of employment
> 
> 
> 
> No snowflake, it doesn’t. Having your hours doesn’t cut back doesn’t categorize one as “unemployed”.
Click to expand...

it should be measured as underemployment, if a "normal" work week is forty hours.

In any case, with such a low unemployment rate, why can't labor simply get a second minimum wage job at fifteen dollars an hour?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> cutting hours affects level of employment, only flawed studies don't take into account, underpayment under Any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait....so you’re now *admitting* that unemployment isn’t nearly as low in Seattle as you’ve been claiming?
Click to expand...

i am not claiming anything; i am citing my sources.


----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Burger flipping jobs
> 
> 
> 
> We’re not discussing your “career”. Nobody asked about you. Back to the facts - wages are *up* under *President Trump* and the Republicans. Unemployment is down.
Click to expand...

Wages on Burger flipping jobs are not up

That is all Trump has created


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we can sell tickets to tear it down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm not going to try to have a serious conversation with some asshole who can't use the President's actual name,
> 
> so piss off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't refute my post, and you use English slang which tells me that you're probably not an American.
Click to expand...


Normally, I'd love to address an actual point. YOu lefties rarely gin one up.

But, I'm not feeling like putting up your your childish, asshole bullshit today.

SO, my "piss off" is all you get. 


YOu want to discuss serious issues, try not talking like a retarded child.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
Click to expand...



They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.


They are fools for doing it.


Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.


ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.



I can't imagine a worse course of action.


----------



## OnePercenter

kaz said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a piece of the Berlin wall. One could sell pieces of the tRump holocaust wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your racist rant is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid
Click to expand...


"Indian software coolies" is racist.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, low unemployment and those coal miners still can't find jobs? Might as well bring in people that actually want to work. Immigrants help grow the economy. That stupid wall will only hold back growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When "immigrants" come in, the only grow the economy big enough to provide what they consume.  In fact, they don't even grow it as much as that.  Most of them suck off the taxpayers.  Holding them back is the whole point of the wall.
Click to expand...


Then take-back your 100k+ Canadian countrymen.


----------



## OnePercenter

bripat9643 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seattle is beating the national average regarding unemployment even with a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> While their minimum wage workers are bringing home *less* than their minimum wage counterparts in other nations. Nothing makes the poor poorer like failed left-wing policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a flawed study?  the minimum wage is the minimum wage and Seattle is beating the national average; why can't Labor get several minimum wage jobs at fifteen an hour, to make up for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a good idea except we have 30 million workers who need government assistance. There are not 30 million “extra” jobs waiting to be filled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are labor shortages all over the country that is hurting the economy, raising prices and stopping companies from expanding, thus, hurting more job creation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT. Higher wages for workers come about due to regulation.


----------



## Imissbush

bripat9643 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor "shortages" mean higher wages for Americans.  I understand why your corporate masters don't want to pay higher wages, but why do you imagine I would object?
> 
> 
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.
Click to expand...

And we have a shortage of construction workers and truck drivers which makes more things more expensive, holds back business expansion and hurts Americans. Immigration is good, it makes us stronger


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sending people home is not a Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your racist rant is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Indian software coolies" is racist.
Click to expand...



So much time spent on worrying about bullshit. 


So little spent on worrying about the welfare of his fellow citizens.


----------



## basquebromance

imagine your house being on fire, and the neighbors complainin that the fire alarm is too loud. that's just like the democrats on the wall and ms-13


----------



## OnePercenter

Imissbush said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think so
> Somehow, companies are managing to avoid raising wages
> 
> 
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we have a shortage of construction workers and truck drivers which makes more things more expensive, holds back business expansion and hurts Americans. Immigration is good, it makes us stronger
Click to expand...


We don't have a shortage of either. It's a ploy to drive up profit.


----------



## Imissbush

OnePercenter said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They avoid it by hiring illegals, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we have a shortage of construction workers and truck drivers which makes more things more expensive, holds back business expansion and hurts Americans. Immigration is good, it makes us stronger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have a shortage of either. It's a ploy to drive up profit.
Click to expand...

You are just an idiot, please be quiet


----------



## Imissbush

basquebromance said:


> imagine your house being on fire, and the neighbors complainin that the fire alarm is too loud. that's just like the democrats on the wall and ms-13


Imagine you with a brain. 


Ok, that's really far fetched, never mind


----------



## Muhammed

Reasonable said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> The wall won't  stop anyone. It won't even cover the entire border. It's hard to pick the worst idea of Trump's but with the cost and xenophobia... it's right at the top. That's until he fakes a serious situation in the world and starts a war to save his presidency.
> In case you don't know... the intelligence committee has stated it's not just conjecture anymore with Trump's treasonous acts with Russia... they have solid evidence. They're sweating bullets in the White House like a whore in church. This wall won't be built because he won't last that long to build it. The shit is going to hit the fan soon with the intellectual committee's report that will never permit you to say  " fake Russian connection " ever again. Remember this post when the sky comes crashing down on Trump and you deplorables.
Click to expand...

They wont feel so lucky when patriots send the scumbals' women  back home with ebola, hiv, dark pox, et cetera.


----------



## OnePercenter

Correll said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reducing H1-B visa holders hurting small business? Of course it doesn't effect tRumps businesses.
> 
> Did you know that the current first lady was a H1-B visa holder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your racist rant is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Indian software coolies" is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So much time spent on worrying about bullshit.
> 
> 
> So little spent on worrying about the welfare of his fellow citizens.
Click to expand...


Racist rants are NOT "bullshit."


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't being invaded by hoards of Czech models.  We are being invaded by hoards if Indian software coolies who work for half of what Americans are used to earning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your racist rant is noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Indian software coolies" is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So much time spent on worrying about bullshit.
> 
> 
> So little spent on worrying about the welfare of his fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist rants are NOT "bullshit."
Click to expand...




1. Two sentences is hardly a rant.

2. Being so concerned with the sensitivities of those who are so greatly harming this nation, is bullshit.


----------



## basquebromance

Trump will dismantle this MS-13 gang that's terrorizing our communities!


----------



## OnePercenter

Imissbush said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just GOTTA ask for a link on this one
> 
> Show the number of corporations hiring illegals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we have a shortage of construction workers and truck drivers which makes more things more expensive, holds back business expansion and hurts Americans. Immigration is good, it makes us stronger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have a shortage of either. It's a ploy to drive up profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just an idiot, please be quiet
Click to expand...


Which construction projects are being held up due to lack of labor?

Freight isn't moving as fast due to the hours-of-service regulations effective May 1st, 2018. Plus, UBER is now in the freight broker business. Truck drivers and companies refuse to move it because of the rip-off pay from UBER.


----------



## Correll

basquebromance said:


> Trump will dismantle this MS-13 gang that's terrorizing our communities!




Let US hope so.


IF he were to fucking build the Wall, and Seal the border, that would hurt them a lot.

IF he were to massively deport the illegals, that will hurt them a lot.

THat would be TWO massive steps towards, dismantling them, that's for sure.


----------



## Imissbush

OnePercenter said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> bipat should have got a better education so he wouldnt be forced to compete with illegal aliens for lettuce picking jobs ..
> 
> 
> 
> I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And we have a shortage of construction workers and truck drivers which makes more things more expensive, holds back business expansion and hurts Americans. Immigration is good, it makes us stronger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have a shortage of either. It's a ploy to drive up profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just an idiot, please be quiet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which construction projects are being held up due to lack of labor?
> 
> Freight isn't moving as fast due to the hours-of-service regulations effective May 1st, 2018. Plus, UBER is now in the freight broker business. Truck drivers and companies refuse to move it because of the rip-off pay from UBER.
Click to expand...

You are clueless


----------



## OnePercenter

Correll said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your racist rant is noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Indian software coolies" is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So much time spent on worrying about bullshit.
> 
> 
> So little spent on worrying about the welfare of his fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist rants are NOT "bullshit."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Two sentences is hardly a rant.
> 
> 2. Being so concerned with the sensitivities of those who are so greatly harming this nation, is bullshit.
Click to expand...


I didn't know racism is being dictated by the number of words used. 

The great harm to this nation comes from Republicans and Corporate America and those like you that bash the American workers, which is Putin's plan to annihilate western culture, which makes you a commie.


----------



## OnePercenter

Imissbush said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I compete with software coolies from India.  They have taken most of the good paying tech jobs in this country.  illegals compete for blue collar jobs like construction and truck driving.
> 
> 
> 
> And we have a shortage of construction workers and truck drivers which makes more things more expensive, holds back business expansion and hurts Americans. Immigration is good, it makes us stronger
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have a shortage of either. It's a ploy to drive up profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just an idiot, please be quiet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which construction projects are being held up due to lack of labor?
> 
> Freight isn't moving as fast due to the hours-of-service regulations effective May 1st, 2018. Plus, UBER is now in the freight broker business. Truck drivers and companies refuse to move it because of the rip-off pay from UBER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are clueless
Click to expand...


Then it should be easy to prove me wrong.


----------



## Correll

OnePercenter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indians do work for US companies for half of what US workers are paid.  Facts are racist?  That's just stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Indian software coolies" is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So much time spent on worrying about bullshit.
> 
> 
> So little spent on worrying about the welfare of his fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist rants are NOT "bullshit."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Two sentences is hardly a rant.
> 
> 2. Being so concerned with the sensitivities of those who are so greatly harming this nation, is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know racism is being dictated by the number of words used.
Click to expand...



The number of words comment was obviously directed at your use, sorry, your MISUSE of the word "rant". 

Obviously.


I understand why you pretended to misunderstand. You have little if ANYTHING to say in defense of your position, so you have to gin up false "points" supposedly from me to attack. 

This one was especially weak.


You misused the word "rant". You used it, incorrectly and stupidly in order to negative spin on a point you know you can't refute, because you know it is true.





> The great harm to this nation comes from Republicans and Corporate America and those like you that bash the American workers, which is Putin's plan to annihilate western culture, which makes you a commie.





You are the one attacking a point, that you know is true, ie that India software "coolies" work cheaper than their American counterparts.


You post above tries to pretend that you care about the American worker, but you are defending the practice of importing cheap Third World labor to undercut them .


THe rest of your stupid spin shit is dismissed as too stupid to address.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
Click to expand...

Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
Click to expand...





Yeah. Disrespecting the most powerful nation on Earth, that you share a border with, 


Brilliant policy.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump border wall crowdfunding possible under Tennessee lawmaker's 'trust fund' bill
> 
> _Those who want to see President Trump’s border wall built may get a chance to help fund the project if a recently introduced bill is passed.
> 
> The legislation, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., last week, would create a “border wall trust fund.” People could donate any amount of money to it, with the funds specifically designated for “whatever it takes to build the wall” -- from supplies to salaries. It would be overseen by the Treasury Department, according to Black...
> 
> _
> I guess it's time for folks to put up or shut up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
Click to expand...

I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Disrespecting the most powerful nation on Earth, that you share a border with,
> 
> 
> Brilliant policy.
Click to expand...

Disrespecting the worst President in history


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the suckers pay for their own wall
> 
> Mexico sure isn’t going to pay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
Click to expand...

USA......USA.......USA

Fuck you Trump!


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
Click to expand...

In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.


----------



## dblack

bripat9643 said:


> The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?



Seriously? Is this how idiotic and shrill discourse has become? 

So, you "know" that Democrats want to destroy the country eh? And they say the same thing about Republicans. Silly histrionics.


----------



## bripat9643

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Is this how idiotic and shrill discourse has become?
> 
> So, you "know" that Democrats want to destroy the country eh? And they say the same thing about Republicans. Silly histrionics.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously.  Democrats are a gang of traitorous trash.  They are practically all communists.  When they say the same thing, it's just a propaganda technique.  They say whatever lie the have to say to get elected.  Then they proceed to shit on all law abiding patriotic Americans.


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> imagine your house being on fire, and the neighbors complainin that the fire alarm is too loud. that's just like the democrats on the wall and ms-13


Muster the Militia; we have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems in our free States!


----------



## danielpalos

It is Only tourism unless foreign nationals specifically apply for citizenship; that is how liberal the federal doctrine is.

Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis and whine about taxes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> i am not claiming anything; i am citing my sources.


What “sources”? I haven’t seen you add a single link yet.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Wages on Burger flipping jobs are not up


Well, I’m sorry to hear that my friend. But for people who have actual careers, wages are way *up* and unemployment is way down, thanks to *President Trump*.


----------



## P@triot

Imissbush said:


> Immigration is good


Immigration _is_ good. *Illegal* immigration is a *crime*. It’s a simple distinction that only the left struggles with.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not claiming anything; i am citing my sources.
> 
> 
> 
> What “sources”? I haven’t seen you add a single link yet.
Click to expand...

We have been, "arguing" Constitutional law.  Look at my posts.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is good
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration _is_ good. *Illegal* immigration is a *crime*. It’s a simple distinction that only the left struggles with.
Click to expand...

The federal doctrine is quite liberal.  Only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis and to whine about taxes, afterward. 

All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. and be considered tourists unless they apply for Citizenship, then it would be, immigration.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
Click to expand...

In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump


----------



## P@triot

basquebromance said:


> Trump will dismantle this MS-13 gang that's terrorizing our communities!


Thank God. The American people should have done that ourselves a long time ago. It should have been like Wyatt Earp back in Tombstone - “I see a man wearing an MS-13 tattoo, I *kill* the man wearing it”.

The American people should have declared war on those pigs a long time ago. Thank God *President Trump* has the spine to take care of business.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump


Wrongwinger is _still_ furious that America is flourishing thanks to *President Trump* because he realizes that it proves every claim he has made was an egregious lie. Which also means it becomes less and less likely than he can mooch off of society as he desires.


----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wages on Burger flipping jobs are not up
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I’m sorry to hear that my friend. But for people who have actual careers, wages are way *up* and unemployment is way down, thanks to *President Trump*.
Click to expand...


The Burger flippers got another quarter ......thanks Crooked Donnie!


----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> 
> 
> Wrongwinger is _still_ furious that America is flourishing thanks to *President Trump* because he realizes that it proves every claim he has made was an egregious lie. Which also means it becomes less and less likely than he can mooch off of society as he desires.
Click to expand...


Trump has destroyed our status around the globe and borrowed $1.5 trillion to spread among his rich buddies


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall


Here is a left-wing parasite openly cheering for other nations over his own President and his own nation. Typical progressive. Sad.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a left-wing parasite openly cheering for other nations over his own President and his own nation. Typical progressive. Sad.
Click to expand...

Left wing policy too liberal on this one for the right wing?


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Trump has destroyed our status around the globe and borrowed $1.5 trillion to spread among his rich buddies


Why do you feel the need to _always_ resort to *lying*? Our allies have more respect for us than ever, thanks to *President Trump* and our enemies fear us more than ever thanks to *President Trump*.

French president Emmanuel Macron says he respects President Trump because they’re both ‘mavericks’

Kim Jong-un tells South Korea he will abandon nuclear weapons if US promises to not invade


----------



## danielpalos

Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.


Good Americans don’t listen to desperate progressives attempting to make the outrageous and idiotic case that capitalism trumps the law.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a left-wing parasite openly cheering for other nations over his own President and his own nation. Typical progressive. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Left wing policy too liberal on this one for the right wing?
Click to expand...

All left-wing policy is “too liberal” for the right.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good Capitalists solve their federal problems at the federal borders and make money, not lose money on enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> Good Americans don’t listen to desperate progressives attempting to make the outrageous and idiotic case that capitalism trumps the law.
Click to expand...

Don't whine about Taxes for your socialism on a national basis, right wingers; it really is a drag (on our economy).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a left-wing parasite openly cheering for other nations over his own President and his own nation. Typical progressive. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Left wing policy too liberal on this one for the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All left-wing policy is “too liberal” for the right.
Click to expand...

too bad the right wing is soo clueless and soo Causeless; and their right wing policies end up in the Judiciary, as a result.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

P@triot said:


> Again, that $8 per hour job becomes a $10 per hour job, becomes a $15 per hour job over time due to raises and promotions.


Actually, we can track that. And wages, 9ver the last 30 years, have stagnated.

Not that you had any idea this is a fact. You just kind of pull stuff out of your ass and hope nobody scrutinizes your madeup nonsense.


----------



## P@triot

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that $8 per hour job becomes a $10 per hour job, becomes a $15 per hour job over time due to raises and promotions.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we can track that. And wages, 9ver the last 30 years, have stagnated.
Click to expand...

Holy shit...FFI _thinks_ that “wage stagnation” means people don’t earn more money the longer they are in the work force.   

Oh man...that is funny shit. If only the left understood basic economics.


----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a left-wing parasite openly cheering for other nations over his own President and his own nation. Typical progressive. Sad.
Click to expand...


When our President is as inept as Trump it is hard to support his rants


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a left-wing parasite openly cheering for other nations over his own President and his own nation. Typical progressive. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When our President is as inept as Trump it is hard to support his rants
Click to expand...

ROFL!  Obama makes Trump look like Superman.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> 
> 
> Wrongwinger is _still_ furious that America is flourishing thanks to *President Trump* because he realizes that it proves every claim he has made was an egregious lie. Which also means it becomes less and less likely than he can mooch off of society as he desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump has destroyed our status around the globe and borrowed $1.5 trillion to spread among his rich buddies
Click to expand...

"Status," along with $4.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  Otherwise it's meaningless and worthless.

Your Messiah Obama borrows $10 trillion.  I don't recall any of you dumbass snowflakes whining about it.


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> When our President is as inept as Trump it is hard to support his rants


“Inept”? Why - because the *President Trump* has delivered unprecedented levels of prosperity to the African-American community, and as a racist, that pisses you off?


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.
Click to expand...

Our President reads and speaks at a Fourth Grade level


----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> When our President is as inept as Trump it is hard to support his rants
> 
> 
> 
> “Inept”? Why - because the *President Trump* has delivered unprecedented levels of prosperity to the African-American community, and as a racist, that pisses you off?
Click to expand...


African Americans prospered more under the Great Obama
Unemployment dropped ten percent


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> African Americans prospered more under the Great Obama


African-American unemployment skyrocketed under Barack Insane Obama (the reason a racist like you calls him “Great”). Thankfully it has hit *record* lows under *President Trump*.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> 
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our President reads and speaks at a Fourth Grade level
Click to expand...

That's at least three grades above you.


----------



## SmokeALib

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> 
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our President reads and speaks at a Fourth Grade level
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why you can't understand him.


----------



## basquebromance

Only $641 million is earmarked for new primary fencing in areas that currently have no barriers, and the money can be spent only on “operationally effective designs” that were already deployed as of last May. That means the new prototype designs the Trump administration is exploring cannot be built.You see, it only looks like Trump is The Worst Negotiator God Ever Created. Instead of telling Democrats, "I won't even talk about DACA until we have the border wall," Trump has repeatedly given up the wall, aka The Central Promise of His Campaign, Without Which He Would Not Be in the White House.

This shows what a master strategist Trump is. He throws out the rulebook! You know what else, suckers? Now he can put out a paperback edition with a new chapter, How to Give Up Everything in Return for Nothing. 

The wins are already rolling in. Guess who's suddenly dying to negotiate with Trump? That's right: Kim Jong Un. One look at how Trump negotiates and Kim couldn’t wait to sit down with him.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Mexico will pay, in one coin or another.
> 
> 
> They will come to regret they didn't pay in money.
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking Crooked Donnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are openly mocking America, some of US are just too stupid to know it.
> 
> 
> They are fools for doing it.
> 
> 
> Having America as a friendly neighbor has to be the greatest godsend a nation can hope for.
> 
> 
> ANd not only are they fucking that up, they are also fucking up America.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse course of action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love how Mexico gave Trump the finger when he asked them to pay for his wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Disrespecting the most powerful nation on Earth, that you share a border with,
> 
> 
> Brilliant policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disrespecting the worst President in history
Click to expand...




Their actions is violating our border, started well before Trump.


YOu are on their side, against America.


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the way douchebags like you are always cheering for the defeat of America.  The question is:  why would anyone vote for a Democrat when we know they want to destroy this country?
> 
> 
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our President reads and speaks at a Fourth Grade level
Click to expand...




How is it that he has accomplished so much more than you ever will?


----------



## hjmick

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our President reads and speaks at a Fourth Grade level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it that he has accomplished so much more than you ever will?
Click to expand...



Ouch. That's going to leave a mark...


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## rightwinger

P@triot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> African Americans prospered more under the Great Obama
> 
> 
> 
> African-American unemployment skyrocketed under Barack Insane Obama (the reason a racist like you calls him “Great”). Thankfully it has hit *record* lows under *President Trump*.
Click to expand...


Unemployment of blacks dropped ten percent under the Great Obama 
A number Crooked Donnie will never match


----------



## rightwinger

SmokeALib said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA......USA.......USA
> 
> Fuck you Trump!
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you would flush American down the toilet if that would get rid of Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words .....we flushed America down the toilet when we elected an inept imposter like Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Are you able to read?  I don't see any evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our President reads and speaks at a Fourth Grade level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe that's why you can't understand him.
Click to expand...

He went to Wharton...he has the best words


----------



## P@triot

rightwinger said:


> Unemployment of blacks dropped ten percent under the Great Obama


African-American unemployment _skyrocketed_ under Barack Insane Obama (the reason a racist like you calls him “Great”). Thankfully it has hit *record* lows under *President Trump*.


----------



## Kosh

Most things that the far left is against, is a good bet it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


*Wish he did not want to build the wall.  He is just fullfilling Obamma's Shovel ready job promise...*


----------



## KissMy

Have you crowd funded the wall today?


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> Have you crowd funded the wall today?


No need to - we’ll just redirect funds to where they _should_ be going. 

Cutting Welfare to Illegal Aliens Would Pay for Trump’s Wall


----------



## KissMy

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you crowd funded the wall today?
> 
> 
> 
> No need to - we’ll just redirect funds to where they _should_ be going.
> 
> Cutting Welfare to Illegal Aliens Would Pay for Trump’s Wall
Click to expand...

That money & more was already used on tax cuts for the rich. You still need to pony up money for the wall!


----------



## P@triot

The left will even cover up *murders* for illegal aliens...

MEDIA MALPRACTICE: You won't see THIS story in the 'Post' or the 'Times'


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you crowd funded the wall today?
> 
> 
> 
> No need to - we’ll just redirect funds to where they _should_ be going.
> 
> Cutting Welfare to Illegal Aliens Would Pay for Trump’s Wall
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That money & more was already used on tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...

Any other _really_ immature *lies* you would like to take a stab at? 

CBO says April was best month in history for U.S. budget


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> That money & more was already used on tax cuts for the rich.


The tax cuts have resulted in *record high revenues* to the federal government - just as conservatives have said for over a century now.

  

Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> You still need to pony up money for the wall!


“Free Breast Exams”? Really? What are you - 12? “Free Breast Exams” yuk, yuk, yuk. Jesus, grow the fuck up already.

Progressives: treating women as sexual objects to be used and abused since 1828.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## Loving91390

Build that wall !!!  Build that wall !!!  Build that wall !!!  Build that wall !!!


----------



## Sahba

I hope that when they do commence building, they sell blank concrete square footage in conspicuous city areas to citizens who wish to purchase them for commemorative purposes for, hopefully, perpetuity ... sign me up for that!


----------



## P@triot

How humiliating for the left...

The U.S. has been under international scrutiny for family separations, but neighboring Canada says it does it too


----------



## Slimdugger99

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bripat9643

Slimdugger99 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


There's a link in the post, dumbass.


----------



## Siete

bripat9643 said:


> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a link in the post, dumbass.
Click to expand...


there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?

damn youre a f'n idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Siete said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a link in the post, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?
> 
> damn youre a f'n idiot.
Click to expand...

I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future? 

I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.


----------



## Siete

bripat9643 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a link in the post, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?
> 
> damn youre a f'n idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
Click to expand...


sure you are -

Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.

 ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Siete said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a link in the post, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?
> 
> damn youre a f'n idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
Click to expand...

Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.

You're a fucking moron, ya know it?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That money & more was already used on tax cuts for the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> The tax cuts have resulted in *record high revenues* to the federal government - just as conservatives have said for over a century now.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump Tax Cuts: Revenues Hit Record High In April
Click to expand...

lol.  Income redistribution with "government secured debt".   safe enough, for ya?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## Siete

bripat9643 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a link in the post, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?
> 
> damn youre a f'n idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.
> 
> You're a fucking moron, ya know it?
Click to expand...


Congress had the opportunity to give Trump his wall - they gave him 1/30th of it and fixed it so he couldnt spend it on anything except Bush legislation.

 NEVER GONNA BE NO DAMN PIPE DREAM TRUMP WALL.

U R F'D


----------



## Wyatt earp

Slimdugger99 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



What benefits ?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a link in the post, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?
> 
> damn youre a f'n idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.
> 
> You're a fucking moron, ya know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress had the opportunity to give Trump his wall - they gave him 1/30th of it and fixed it so he couldnt spend it on anything except Bush legislation.
> 
> NEVER GONNA BE NO DAMN PIPE DREAM TRUMP WALL.
> 
> U R F'D
Click to expand...



It's already there you stupid moron..


----------



## Siete

bear513 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> there wont be any wall-- what does Congress have to do to prove that to you ?
> 
> damn youre a f'n idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.
> 
> You're a fucking moron, ya know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress had the opportunity to give Trump his wall - they gave him 1/30th of it and fixed it so he couldnt spend it on anything except Bush legislation.
> 
> NEVER GONNA BE NO DAMN PIPE DREAM TRUMP WALL.
> 
> U R F'D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's already there you stupid moron..
Click to expand...



Pretend youre not an idiot and know the difference between a fence and a wall.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
Click to expand...

the cheap labor for our economy.  

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.


----------



## danielpalos

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.
> 
> You're a fucking moron, ya know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress had the opportunity to give Trump his wall - they gave him 1/30th of it and fixed it so he couldnt spend it on anything except Bush legislation.
> 
> NEVER GONNA BE NO DAMN PIPE DREAM TRUMP WALL.
> 
> U R F'D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's already there you stupid moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretend youre not an idiot and know the difference between a fence and a wall.
Click to expand...

drone technology is improving all the time, and is cheaper to produce over there.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot because I dispute your ability to predict the future?
> 
> I think you're confused about what makes someone an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.
> 
> You're a fucking moron, ya know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress had the opportunity to give Trump his wall - they gave him 1/30th of it and fixed it so he couldnt spend it on anything except Bush legislation.
> 
> NEVER GONNA BE NO DAMN PIPE DREAM TRUMP WALL.
> 
> U R F'D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's already there you stupid moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretend youre not an idiot and know the difference between a fence and a wall.
Click to expand...


It's the same thing.. it will be expanded and your kin folk will be stopped..


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
Click to expand...



How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are -
> 
> Congress approved $1 Billion for fence repair and security  AND TRUMP SIGNED OFF.
> 
> ddduuuhhhhhhhh - try and keep up idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you believe presidents serve for only one year.
> 
> You're a fucking moron, ya know it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress had the opportunity to give Trump his wall - they gave him 1/30th of it and fixed it so he couldnt spend it on anything except Bush legislation.
> 
> NEVER GONNA BE NO DAMN PIPE DREAM TRUMP WALL.
> 
> U R F'D
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's already there you stupid moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretend youre not an idiot and know the difference between a fence and a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same thing.. it will be expanded and your kin folk will be stopped..
Click to expand...

we are discussing options for modern textile technologies for wingsuits.  want to invest?


----------



## DrLove

You need to stop reading chain emails and RW blogs Lil Feller 

Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
Click to expand...

Dear, the US is a First World economy.

Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".


----------



## Siete

DrLove said:


> You need to stop reading chain emails and RW blogs Lil Feller
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org



what led you to believe they can read ?


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
Click to expand...



That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?


----------



## danielpalos

DrLove said:


> You need to stop reading chain emails and RW blogs Lil Feller
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org


remember, right wingers. 

regulation, costs.


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slimdugger99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get your numbers? Where did they get their numbers? The cost of immigration?, what about it’s benefits? What numbers do you have for that? Or are you saying that they don’t contribute much more than they cost our nation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
Click to expand...

We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
> 
> 
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What benefits ?
> 
> 
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
Click to expand...


We know


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cheap labor for our economy.
> 
> a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will help out US labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know
Click to expand...

There is an entire department for housing and urban development.  it should be a science, by now.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you going to force companies to stay in business with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an entire department for housing and urban development.  it should be a science, by now.
Click to expand...



So you run away business turn the wealthiest citie in America at one time to a dump and you want the US government to bail them out?


----------



## danielpalos

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an entire department for housing and urban development.  it should be a science, by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you run away business turn the wealthiest citie in America at one time to a dump and you want the US government to bail them out?
Click to expand...

that is the right wing, MO.

Here is what some on the left want to accomplish:


----------



## Siete

bear513 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, the US is a First World economy.
> 
> Cheap labor is being "taken off the menu".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an entire department for housing and urban development.  it should be a science, by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you run away business turn the wealthiest citie in America at one time to a dump and you want the US government to bail them out?
Click to expand...


thus spake the idgit - I rest my case.


----------



## Wyatt earp

danielpalos said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an entire department for housing and urban development.  it should be a science, by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you run away business turn the wealthiest citie in America at one time to a dump and you want the US government to bail them out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is the right wing, MO.
> 
> Here is what some on the left want to accomplish:
Click to expand...



With what money?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Siete said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> 
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an explanation, tell us how you going to force companies to stay here with a $15 dollar minimum wage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't care if capitalists leave for cheap labor.  We can always find, "less costly" rich people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is an entire department for housing and urban development.  it should be a science, by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you run away business turn the wealthiest citie in America at one time to a dump and you want the US government to bail them out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thus spake the idgit - I rest my case.
Click to expand...



The only thing you tell us is your an illegal..


----------



## Billy_Bob

DrLove said:


> You need to stop reading chain emails and RW blogs Lil Feller
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org


A left wing hack site is what you use to "fact check"....



You do realize that is a George Soro's funded site, don't you?  Soros is a One world government socialist guy..


----------



## Siete

Billy_Bob said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to stop reading chain emails and RW blogs Lil Feller
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> A left wing hack site is what you use to "fact check"....
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a George Soro's funded site, don't you?  Soros is a One world government socialist guy..
Click to expand...



Soros is a One world government socialist guy..[

must be why hes a business partner with Kershner and Trump.


----------



## Marion Morrison

rightwinger said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> When our President is as inept as Trump it is hard to support his rants
> 
> 
> 
> “Inept”? Why - because the *President Trump* has delivered unprecedented levels of prosperity to the African-American community, and as a racist, that pisses you off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> African Americans prospered more under the Great Obama
> Unemployment dropped ten percent
Click to expand...


Proof, bitch? Owait, you're right. Obama injected thousands of Muslim Africans into American Minnesota, they aren't Americans yet, though, fucker.

They're doing better than they were in Somalia, though. I think they should go back there. As for black Americans? Obama brought in Somalians and illegal Mexicans to take their/our jobs. An increase in SNAP and EBT allowances is not prosperity, or maybe it is to you.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Siete said:


> Soros is a One world government socialist guy..[
> 
> must be why hes a business partner with Kershner and Trump.



Proof of business dealings? It's "Kushner" too, faggot.


----------



## Marion Morrison

In b4 Somalians start getting deported.


----------



## DrLove

Billy_Bob said:


> DrLove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to stop reading chain emails and RW blogs Lil Feller
> 
> Cost of Illegal Immigrants - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> 
> A left wing hack site is what you use to "fact check"....
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a George Soro's funded site, don't you?  Soros is a One world government socialist guy..
Click to expand...


Incorrect Bison Breath - FactCheck.org was founded by conservative billionaire Walter Annenberg and is now run and funded primarily by his foundation.

Annenberg was appointed ambassador to the UK in 1969 by Richard Nixon:
Walter Annenberg - Wikipedia

They receive zero funding from Soros or any other partisans or partisan organizations - They list all individual donors who give more than $1,000 each year.

We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions circulating on the social media site. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.​
Our Funding - FactCheck.org

Their media bias rating is ZERO
FactCheck - Media Bias/Fact Check

It would seem to me that Billy Bob needs to be fact checked!


----------



## DrLove

DrLove said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a George Soro's funded site, don't you?  Soros is a One world government socialist guy..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect Bison Breath - FactCheck.org was founded by conservative billionaire Walter Annenberg and is now run and funded primarily by his foundation.
> 
> Annenberg was appointed ambassador to the UK in 1969 by Richard Nixon:
> Walter Annenberg - Wikipedia
> 
> They receive zero funding from Soros or any other partisans or partisan organizations - They list all individual donors who give more than $1,000 each year.
> 
> We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions circulating on the social media site. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.​
> Our Funding - FactCheck.org
> 
> Their media bias rating is ZERO
> FactCheck - Media Bias/Fact Check
> 
> It would seem to me that Billy Bob needs to be fact checked!
Click to expand...


Hey, where did Billy_Bob go?


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall. you see a wall? Hell no - and you aint gonna see no damn wall either.


Ahahahahahahaha! 


> More than 200 requests for land surveys have been sent to landowners in South Texas for a potential border wall. Several residents told a local television station that they've even received offers to sell their land to the government in Starr and Hidalgo counties. Residents say the requests to survey the land and requests for permission have increased in the last few months


The only thing better than watching a smug prick forced to swallow a big dick is watching an uninformed, smug prick forced to swallow a big dick! 

The federal government has notified South Texas residents of impending land surveys for border wall


----------



## P@triot

Pocahontas is at it once again...


> Oof. A lot to unpack here. Let's break this down. First, there's the line:
> 
> “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”
> 
> What exactly does that mean? Because in the past week alone, ICE has hauled off an illegal immigrant charged with murder in Mexico and a literal Nazi. If anything, the system failed in not preventing the entry of the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.


She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.

THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin


----------



## Correll

P@triot said:


> Pocahontas is at it once again...
> 
> 
> 
> Oof. A lot to unpack here. Let's break this down. First, there's the line:
> 
> “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”
> 
> What exactly does that mean? Because in the past week alone, ICE has hauled off an illegal immigrant charged with murder in Mexico and a literal Nazi. If anything, the system failed in not preventing the entry of the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.
> 
> 
> 
> She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.
> 
> THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin
Click to expand...



They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.


THey are insane and vile at the same time.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pocahontas is at it once again...
> 
> 
> 
> Oof. A lot to unpack here. Let's break this down. First, there's the line:
> 
> “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”
> 
> What exactly does that mean? Because in the past week alone, ICE has hauled off an illegal immigrant charged with murder in Mexico and a literal Nazi. If anything, the system failed in not preventing the entry of the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.
> 
> 
> 
> She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.
> 
> THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.
> 
> 
> THey are insane and vile at the same time.
Click to expand...

Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.


Exactly. Hence the premise of this thread, dumb ass. Thus the reason we are building the wall. 

Trump's Wall Costs $21 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148 Billion Yearly—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



That is silly.
_The reality is, "China’s Great Wall" did NOT at all do it’s job, and neither did "Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain"._
The reality is that the Mongols easily penetrated the Great Wall of China, and conquered all of China.
Hadrian's wall never made any sense at all, because it was the Picts of Scotland that wanted to build a wall, in order to keep the Romans out of Scotland.  The fact the Romans built the wall instead, just shows how foolish the Romans were.  And eventually the Romans had to leave off of Britain alone, because invasion never makes any sense really.

And no, illegal immigration does not cost a cent.  We make money on the labor of these illegal immigrants, who do agricultural jobs no one else wants.


----------



## Rigby5

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
Click to expand...


That makes no sense.
Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
So there are very few illegals using the ER.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



Right, but the wall isn't going to do much to solve the problem of illegal immigrants.

Here’s the Reality About Illegal Immigrants in the United States

There are an estimated 11 million illegals in the US.

6 million of them are from Mexico.





Blue is 10 years or more residency in the US. 
Gray is less than 5 years. 
Blue is above 60%
Gray is below 20%





This one is blue - overstayed visas at 250,000 people
The gray one - crossed over the border with Mexico at about 140,000 people in 2013.

So the wall might stop 140,000 people a year from entering the US of the 11 million illegal immigrants.

So you say $148 billion is the cost of illegal immigrants.

That's 1.2% of the people. 

1.2% of $148 billion is $1.7 billion. 

So, Trump is going to pay $21 billion to tackle a problem that is $1.7 billion.

Then there's the cost the wall will cost in upkeep every year. 

"Although walls are a simple and time-tested strategy—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so too did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain"

Then your source writes this.

The Great Wall of China did it's job huh?

The existing wall in Ming Dynasty from 1386-1644, it was replaced by the Qing Dynasty which was from Mongolia. Yeah, other side of the wall. 

Worked well, huh? 

The Roman Hadrian's Wall isn't so clear.

There's something called the Antonine Wall. The Roman's built it. Wait, what? So, if Hadrian's Wall was designed to keep the Scots out, what were the Romans doing building a wall much further north?





The second wall didn't last long for the Romans, as they were kicked out of southern Scotland.

The Romans were gone by 410 AD. Last coins found there were from 403-406. 

Did it do well? Was it even designed to stop the Scots getting into England? No idea.


----------



## Siete

*Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*



minus the $2 Billion for upkeep on 43's fence ..


----------



## Unkotare

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pocahontas is at it once again...
> 
> 
> 
> Oof. A lot to unpack here. Let's break this down. First, there's the line:
> 
> “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”
> 
> What exactly does that mean? Because in the past week alone, ICE has hauled off an illegal immigrant charged with murder in Mexico and a literal Nazi. If anything, the system failed in not preventing the entry of the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.
> 
> 
> 
> She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.
> 
> THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.
> 
> 
> THey are insane and vile at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
Click to expand...



Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.


----------



## kaz

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
Click to expand...


Jake monitors the board to be the first to fight for Democrats in any new thread


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
Click to expand...


Sadly, no, he believes his stupid crap


----------



## kaz

BULLDOG said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. When will Mexico send the check?
Click to expand...


No one gives a shit, Ivanka


----------



## kaz

IcebergSlim said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??
> 
> 
> 
> They are "facts" because some random douche on the innertubes asserts so, or because said random douche is endorsed by Bripat?
Click to expand...


With the flow of drugs across the open border, $148 billion is conservative.   Then there's 23% of Federal prisoners are illegal aliens.  Illegal aliens are filling schools, emergency rooms.  Besides the overt cost savings, the safety and security of the United States would be greatly enhanced by a wall


----------



## Indeependent

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to an ER in NYC or Nassau County?
The entire family is there.


----------



## kaz

Indeependent said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been to an ER in NYC or Nassau County?
> The entire family is there.
Click to expand...


Yes, he's just making up what he wants to believe


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Hence the premise of this thread, dumb ass. Thus the reason we are building the wall.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148 Billion Yearly—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial
Click to expand...

walls don't generate revenue, usually.  We need the Great Walls of America, for that.

and, any money even illegals circulate in our economy, contributes to a positive multiplier effect. 

nobody takes the right wing seriously about capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pocahontas is at it once again...
> 
> 
> 
> Oof. A lot to unpack here. Let's break this down. First, there's the line:
> 
> “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”
> 
> What exactly does that mean? Because in the past week alone, ICE has hauled off an illegal immigrant charged with murder in Mexico and a literal Nazi. If anything, the system failed in not preventing the entry of the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.
> 
> 
> 
> She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.
> 
> THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.
> 
> 
> THey are insane and vile at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
Click to expand...



Makes no sense, where do you think they got the term anchor babies from? Heck a few years ago 60 minutes had a huge segment on how illegals using the ERs in Florida was bankrupting the system.


----------



## danielpalos

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## Unkotare

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense, where do you think they got the term anchor babies from? Heck a few years ago 60 minutes had a huge segment on how illegals using the ERs in Florida was bankrupting the system.
Click to expand...





When the doctors give the babies to their parents, do they put them on top of the receipt?


----------



## Wyatt earp

frigidweirdo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but the wall isn't going to do much to solve the problem of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Here’s the Reality About Illegal Immigrants in the United States
> 
> There are an estimated 11 million illegals in the US.
> 
> 6 million of them are from Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue is 10 years or more residency in the US.
> Gray is less than 5 years.
> Blue is above 60%
> Gray is below 20%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is blue - overstayed visas at 250,000 people
> The gray one - crossed over the border with Mexico at about 140,000 people in 2013.
> 
> So the wall might stop 140,000 people a year from entering the US of the 11 million illegal immigrants.
> 
> So you say $148 billion is the cost of illegal immigrants.
> 
> That's 1.2% of the people.
> 
> 1.2% of $148 billion is $1.7 billion.
> 
> So, Trump is going to pay $21 billion to tackle a problem that is $1.7 billion.
> 
> Then there's the cost the wall will cost in upkeep every year.
> 
> "Although walls are a simple and time-tested strategy—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so too did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain"
> 
> Then your source writes this.
> 
> The Great Wall of China did it's job huh?
> 
> The existing wall in Ming Dynasty from 1386-1644, it was replaced by the Qing Dynasty which was from Mongolia. Yeah, other side of the wall.
> 
> Worked well, huh?
> 
> The Roman Hadrian's Wall isn't so clear.
> 
> There's something called the Antonine Wall. The Roman's built it. Wait, what? So, if Hadrian's Wall was designed to keep the Scots out, what were the Romans doing building a wall much further north?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second wall didn't last long for the Romans, as they were kicked out of southern Scotland.
> 
> The Romans were gone by 410 AD. Last coins found there were from 403-406.
> 
> Did it do well? Was it even designed to stop the Scots getting into England? No idea.
Click to expand...



How about the wall keeping your dogs from going into your nieghbors yard?



.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Unkotare said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense, where do you think they got the term anchor babies from? Heck a few years ago 60 minutes had a huge segment on how illegals using the ERs in Florida was bankrupting the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the doctors give the babies to their parents, do they put them on top of the receipt?
Click to expand...



And that is relevant to the OP how burger flipper?


.


----------



## Unkotare

bear513 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense, where do you think they got the term anchor babies from? Heck a few years ago 60 minutes had a huge segment on how illegals using the ERs in Florida was bankrupting the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the doctors give the babies to their parents, do they put them on top of the receipt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is relevant to the OP how burger flipper?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Do you flip burgers with the receipt right on the burger?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Unkotare said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the fake thinks illegals are brought by the stork and doesn't use the emergency rooms to deliver all their baby's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense, where do you think they got the term anchor babies from? Heck a few years ago 60 minutes had a huge segment on how illegals using the ERs in Florida was bankrupting the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the doctors give the babies to their parents, do they put them on top of the receipt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is relevant to the OP how burger flipper?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you flip burgers with the receipt right on the burger?
Click to expand...



I get twits like you to make me burgers and once again what does this have to do with the OP? You have a stick up your ass again about me?


----------



## Hossfly

Read it and weep leftards. What is your comeback to this revelation? It's about the wall Mexico is building.


*TRUMP’S LATEST DEAL WITH MEXICO SAVES US SO MUCH MONEY, WE MAY BE ABLE TO BUILD THE WALL!*

The new trade deal with Mexico will save this country tens of billions of dollars over the next several years, if not hundreds of billions. More than enough to pay for the wall. Maybe it’s not the way you expected it, but Mexico is definitely paying for the wall.

President Trump’s biggest promise has been fulfilled. The Democrats and the media will never admit it and no doubt, they will spin the deal with Mexico as a bad thing. They will never admit that Trump is capable of doing great things. But he does them anyway.

*That was all before President Trump announced a United States-Mexico trade agreement. Because Trump talked tough and never gave in, US workers will benefit. US carmakers will benefit. US manufacturers will benefit. US taxpayers will benefit. Trump did it. He won. We all won. Trump announced he will terminate NAFTA.*


*Trump's Latest Deal With Mexico Saves Us So Much Money, We May Be Able To Build The Wall!!*


----------



## Unkotare

bear513 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Illegals take risks to get work so then can send back money.
> Females almost never come along because it is too dangerous and the work too hard.
> So there are very few illegals using the ER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense, where do you think they got the term anchor babies from? Heck a few years ago 60 minutes had a huge segment on how illegals using the ERs in Florida was bankrupting the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the doctors give the babies to their parents, do they put them on top of the receipt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is relevant to the OP how burger flipper?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you flip burgers with the receipt right on the burger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get twits like you to make me burgers and once again what does this have to do with the OP? You have a stick up your ass again about me?
Click to expand...





I don’t see why I would make you a burger. I wouldn’t even let you in my house stinking of cigarettes.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pocahontas is at it once again...
> 
> 
> 
> Oof. A lot to unpack here. Let's break this down. First, there's the line:
> 
> “One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”
> 
> What exactly does that mean? Because in the past week alone, ICE has hauled off an illegal immigrant charged with murder in Mexico and a literal Nazi. If anything, the system failed in not preventing the entry of the illegal immigrant who murdered Mollie Tibbetts.
> 
> 
> 
> She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.
> 
> THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.
> 
> 
> THey are insane and vile at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
Click to expand...




Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican. 


We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pocahontas is at it once again...
> She’s exponentially more interested in helping Mexicans than she is in helping Americans.
> 
> THIS is a prime example of anti-logic, postmodernist spin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.
> 
> 
> THey are insane and vile at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
Click to expand...

not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> They attack the system for not being effective in keeping people out, and their answer is to create a new system that purposefully lets in everyone.
> 
> 
> THey are insane and vile at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
Click to expand...




Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
Click to expand...

ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."  

Too inferior to be taken seriously.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only vile capitalists want to use slave labor to undercut the wages of their fellow citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...



I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.


Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
Click to expand...

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.


----------



## Clementine

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​





The left only bitches about cost because they know the people are fed up with government spending.     They can't very well be honest about why they want illegal immigrants.    It's about votes.   Period.  

Leftist ideas cost a lot of money and never work.    But, it makes the useful idiots feel good, as if government really does care about them.   So, while the left increases the amount of crumbs they hand out, always with the promise of more freebies in the future, the right actually cares about the safety of people.   And the right actually wants to help people succeed rather than sit and wait their entire lives for government to do something.    

Liberals are total hypocrites.    Watch what they do, not what they say.    

Border security isn't about money.

Gun control isn't about safety.  

Choice isn't even about choice.   (you are free to choose as long as you do what the left wants)

Welfare isn't about helping people.   It's about ceding rights to big government so people can be taken care of. 

Tax increases aren't about paying down our debt or solid programs.   It's about weakening middle class and collapsing our economy.

Minimum wage hikes aren't about helping the low income people.   It's about eliminating jobs so more will turn to government and eventually be willing to cede their rights.   


It's all about liberals gaining a stronghold in government and controlling us.    Everything they do leads to the same thing- a massive, controlling government.     And remember, they will never suffer by having to abide by the same shit they force on the rest of us.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
> 
> 
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
Click to expand...



If you were serious, about not taking US seriously, you wouldn't hide behind purposefully obtuse style.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you were serious, about not taking US seriously, you wouldn't hide behind purposefully obtuse style.
Click to expand...

it isn't obtuse; you simply don't understand the concepts.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you were serious, about not taking US seriously, you wouldn't hide behind purposefully obtuse style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't obtuse; you simply don't understand the concepts.
Click to expand...




Your words.



"unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States,"


Why not just say, "universal basic income", maybe even with a link?


You are being purposefully obtuse.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you were serious, about not taking US seriously, you wouldn't hide behind purposefully obtuse style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't obtuse; you simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words.
> 
> 
> 
> "unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States,"
> 
> 
> Why not just say, "universal basic income", maybe even with a link?
> 
> 
> You are being purposefully obtuse.
Click to expand...

you don't understand they are two separate concepts.  

we already have the legal and physical infrastructure for solving simple poverty in our Republic, via the eminent domain of public policy regarding capitalism's need for a natural rate of unemployment.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you were serious, about not taking US seriously, you wouldn't hide behind purposefully obtuse style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't obtuse; you simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words.
> 
> 
> 
> "unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States,"
> 
> 
> Why not just say, "universal basic income", maybe even with a link?
> 
> 
> You are being purposefully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't understand they are two separate concepts.
> ...
Click to expand...



What is the difference, and don't post word salad.


----------



## danielpalos

i don't make, argumentative Excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were serious, about not taking US seriously, you wouldn't hide behind purposefully obtuse style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it isn't obtuse; you simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words.
> 
> 
> 
> "unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States,"
> 
> 
> Why not just say, "universal basic income", maybe even with a link?
> 
> 
> You are being purposefully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't understand they are two separate concepts.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference, and don't post word salad.
Click to expand...

you didn't get it the first time; no Cliff notes for You. 

exercised your "work ethic from the Age of Iron, lately"?


----------



## basquebromance

65 countries, more than a third of the world's nation states have built barriers around their borders.

European nations have more walls around their borders than during the height of the Cold war.

walls work. walls work!


----------



## danielpalos

basquebromance said:


> 65 countries, more than a third of the world's nation states have built barriers around their borders.
> 
> European nations have more walls around their borders than during the height of the Cold war.
> 
> walls work. walls work!


only Lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.


----------



## basquebromance

Trump's wall will be the most forbidding & hostile in the world. from up close, from both sides, it rears up from the ground, overwhelming & dominating you. faced by this blank expanse of steel & concrete, you will be dwarfed not only by its size but by what it represents. you are on 1 side, "they" are on the other!


----------



## danielpalos

The Great Walls of America, so we can make money not lose money!


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling US what we need, Mexican.
> 
> 
> We obviously disagree with you. Does Mexico have a 15 dollar an hour min wage? Go tell it to them, that is your home anyways
> 
> 
> 
> not enough gray matter to go around on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that you are a Mexican is not a sign of stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok.  how about a superior argument; or, i get to "file a grievance with the superiority committee."
> 
> Too inferior to be taken seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did that when I pointed out that slave wages are not good for America.
> 
> 
> Since then you have just been playing your normal silly games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about any inflation canard.  other than that, you have no valid rebuttals.
Click to expand...

Then all our businesses will move to Mexico.


----------



## Slyhunter

Tax all eft's going to Mexico.
All's fair tax the ones coming from Mexico too if you want.


----------



## P@triot

I’ve said it a zillion times since the left started supporting criminal activity - this is all about stealing elections.


> We’re probably in the neighborhood of about 15 million illegal aliens in America now. 15 million comes out to roughly *20 congressional seats and 20 electoral college votes*. Each congressional seat has roughly 700,000 to 800,000 people in it.


History has proven that left-wing policy results in poverty and collapse. They have no leg to stand on. So they must resort to tactics like indoctrination, propaganda, and stealing elections.

Mo Brooks: The 15M Illegal Aliens in U.S. Give Blue States 20 Congressional Seats


----------



## P@triot

The entire video is very informative. But the 33:50 mark is the most important for the uninformed who were duped into believing a wall won’t help.


----------



## P@triot

Inexcusable. Forget about the heinous crimes for a moment. The cost to the American tax payer alone is staggering for 20% of our entire prison population. That would pay for the wall in the blink of an eye.

One in five US prison inmates is a 'criminal alien'


----------



## P@triot

For _each_ murder of a U.S. citizen by an illegal alien, 5 incumbent Dumbocrats in Congress should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Bet those smug assholes with Secret Service protection would change their tune real quick about illegal aliens (and trying to win elections by leveraging them).

California man suspected of three murders is illegal immigrant, had been deported six times


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​


This would be the ultimate reason for immigration enforcement if it wasn’t for the fact that the left celebrated 9/11. There anti-American sentiments coupled with their desire to see our economy collapse caused them to embrace what occurred. They have no desire to stop the next 9/11.

Kobach: Three 9/11 Planes Could Have Been Stopped by Immigration Enforcement


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> The entire video is very informative. But the 33:50 mark is the most important for the uninformed who were duped into believing a wall won’t help.


spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.


Spending; the right-wing believes it should be limited to the constitutional authority of federal, state, and local governments. A concept lost on the uneducated, uninformed, and greedy left-wing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending; the right-wing believes it should be limited to the constitutional authority of federal, state, and local governments. A concept lost on the uneducated, uninformed, and greedy left-wing.
Click to expand...

we don't have a general warfare or common offense clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending; the right-wing believes it should be limited to the constitutional authority of federal, state, and local governments. A concept lost on the uneducated, uninformed, and greedy left-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare or common offense clause.
Click to expand...

We also don’t have a general healthcare clause....but that hasn’t stopped you greedy lazy liberals!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending; the right-wing believes it should be limited to the constitutional authority of federal, state, and local governments. A concept lost on the uneducated, uninformed, and greedy left-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare or common offense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also don’t have a general healthcare clause....but that hasn’t stopped you greedy lazy liberals!
Click to expand...

don't need one; the power delegated for the general welfare is General.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending; the right-wing believes it should be limited to the constitutional authority of federal, state, and local governments. A concept lost on the uneducated, uninformed, and greedy left-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare or common offense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also don’t have a general healthcare clause....but that hasn’t stopped you greedy lazy liberals!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need one; the power delegated for the general welfare is General.
Click to expand...

Exactly! It’s “general” (within the 18 enumerated powers). It is not the healthcare welfare!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> spending; the right wing doesn't believe it matters when cutting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending; the right-wing believes it should be limited to the constitutional authority of federal, state, and local governments. A concept lost on the uneducated, uninformed, and greedy left-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general warfare or common offense clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also don’t have a general healthcare clause....but that hasn’t stopped you greedy lazy liberals!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't need one; the power delegated for the general welfare is General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! It’s “general” (within the 18 enumerated powers). It is not the healthcare welfare!
Click to expand...

fixing Standards for the Union is a power delegated to Congress.  We have a Commerce Clause; metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare.  We can start in the federal districts.


----------



## P@triot

Thank you, *President* *Trump*, for putting America *first*. After 8 years of the anti-American, globalist MaObama doing everything in his power to undermine the U.S., it has been such a gift to have a president who puts his nation and his people above the needs of foreign interests.


> Honduras appeared to act quickly on Tuesday after President Donald Trump threatened to cut humanitarian aid to their country over a caravan of migrants who were travelling towards the U.S.


That’s all it takes. It really is that simple. And that’s all it would take to cause Mexico to drop to their knees. 


> “The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, *no* *more* *money* *or* *aid* will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday.


Amazing how quickly Honduras was able to assist us in illegal immigration (and they aren’t even remotely close to our border).


> Vice President Mike Pence followed up with his own tweet to explain the actions that were being taken to encourage Honduras to prevent the migrant caravan. “Delivered strong message from [the president]: no more aid if caravan is not stopped,” he added. “Told him U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border & sovereignty.”


Everyone is desperate for our money. If they want it, they have to do their part to *stop* the invasion of the United States.

Honduras takes action against migrant caravan after Trump threatens to cut aid


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> fixing Standards for the Union is a power delegated to Congress.


No it’s not. Never has been. Ever. You should really try reading the U.S. Constitution once.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Thank you, *President* *Trump*, for putting America *first*. After 8 years of the anti-American, globalist MaObama doing everything in his power to undermine the U.S., it has been such a gift to have a president who puts his nation and his people above the needs of foreign interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Honduras appeared to act quickly on Tuesday after President Donald Trump threatened to cut humanitarian aid to their country over a caravan of migrants who were travelling towards the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s all it takes. It really is that simple. And that’s all it would take to cause Mexico to drop to their knees.
> 
> 
> 
> “The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, *no* *more* *money* *or* *aid* will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing how quickly Honduras was able to assist us in illegal immigration (and they aren’t even remotely close to our border).
> 
> 
> 
> Vice President Mike Pence followed up with his own tweet to explain the actions that were being taken to encourage Honduras to prevent the migrant caravan. “Delivered strong message from [the president]: no more aid if caravan is not stopped,” he added. “Told him U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border & sovereignty.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone is desperate for our money. If they want it, they have to do their part to *stop* the invasion of the United States.
> 
> Honduras takes action against migrant caravan after Trump threatens to cut aid
Click to expand...

Doesn't solve Honduras problem.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> fixing Standards for the Union is a power delegated to Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> No it’s not. Never has been. Ever. You should really try reading the U.S. Constitution once.
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Why not take your own advice.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Doesn't solve Honduras problem.


The American people *don’t* elect a president to solve the problems of Honduras.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't solve Honduras problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The American people *don’t* elect a president to solve the problems of Honduras.
Click to expand...

Congress has the authority to solve our social dilemmas.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't solve Honduras problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The American people *don’t* elect a president to solve the problems of Honduras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the authority to solve our social dilemmas.
Click to expand...

A. No they don’t

B. Stop moving the goalposts every time I expose the idiocy of your posts


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only Lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.


Which is exactly why nobody listens to you. Because, if they did, they would definitely lose money on border policies.

Shock report: US paying more for illegal immigrant births than Trump’s wall


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't solve Honduras problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The American people *don’t* elect a president to solve the problems of Honduras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the authority to solve our social dilemmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. No they don’t
> 
> B. Stop moving the goalposts every time I expose the idiocy of your posts
Click to expand...

Yes, they do; and those are the goal posts; you merely try to special plead your way around them.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only Lousy capitalists lose money on border policies.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why nobody listens to you. Because, if they did, they would definitely lose money on border policies.
> 
> Shock report: US paying more for illegal immigrant births than Trump’s wall
Click to expand...

We should have no illegal problem; that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should have no illegal problem;


And we wouldn’t if you anti-American left-wing hatriots would uphold the law instead of violating the law.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.


Government is a form of political systems, not economic systems, you poorly educated buffoon. You keep confusing the two. You’ll understand better once you take civics in high school.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no illegal problem;
> 
> 
> 
> And we wouldn’t if you anti-American left-wing hatriots would uphold the law instead of violating the law.
Click to expand...

we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.  

10USC246 is a fine example.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form of political systems, not economic systems, you poorly educated buffoon. You keep confusing the two. You’ll understand better once you take civics in high school.
Click to expand...

Capitalism not socialism on a national basis!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.
> 
> 10USC246 is a fine example.


Bwahahaha!!! 

10USC246
(*b*)The classes of the militia are—
(*2*)the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​
Once again you defeat your own position!!!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form of political systems, not economic systems, you poorly educated buffoon. You keep confusing the two. You’ll understand better once you take civics in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism not socialism on a national basis!
Click to expand...

We _have_ capitalism on a “national basis” (when the Dumbocrats aren’t in charge). Unfortunately, you’re just too stupid to comprehend that you can’t have a “capitalism” government. Governments are forms of _political_ systems, you nitwit. Capitalism is an _economic_ system.


----------



## regent

If the conservatives control the executive, the Congress and now the Court, why don't they build the wall?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.
> 
> 10USC246 is a fine example.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> 10USC246
> (*b*)The classes of the militia are—
> (*2*)the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​
> Once again you defeat your own position!!!
Click to expand...

Organize the unorganized militia!  Nothing but gun lovers is what they are.  We should have no security problems in our free States, or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Extra-Constitutional socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.  They prefer to "blame the Poor" and cut social services instead of promote the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form of political systems, not economic systems, you poorly educated buffoon. You keep confusing the two. You’ll understand better once you take civics in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism not socialism on a national basis!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We _have_ capitalism on a “national basis” (when the Dumbocrats aren’t in charge). Unfortunately, you’re just too stupid to comprehend that you can’t have a “capitalism” government. Governments are forms of _political_ systems, you nitwit. Capitalism is an _economic_ system.
Click to expand...

capitalism at the border not socialism on a national basis at the border!


----------



## Jackson

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure.


That's all you have to say... what a moron.  You don't care about the welfare of this country, just your social;istic biases.


----------



## Jackson

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here


No. you use them for illegal votes.


----------



## Jackson

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.
> 
> 10USC246 is a fine example.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> 10USC246
> (*b*)The classes of the militia are—
> (*2*)the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​
> Once again you defeat your own position!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organize the unorganized militia!  Nothing but gun lovers is what they are.  We should have no security problems in our free States, or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
> 
> Extra-Constitutional socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.  They prefer to "blame the Poor" and cut social services instead of promote the general welfare.
Click to expand...

We have laws that protect our borders and demand that immigrants come to our country legally.  You and your ilk deny this country to use these laws to make out country a safer one.


----------



## danielpalos

Jackson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> No. you use them for illegal votes.
Click to expand...

you have to prove all illegals vote blue and not red.


----------



## danielpalos

Jackson said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.
> 
> 10USC246 is a fine example.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> 10USC246
> (*b*)The classes of the militia are—
> (*2*)the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​
> Once again you defeat your own position!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organize the unorganized militia!  Nothing but gun lovers is what they are.  We should have no security problems in our free States, or the Expense of alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
> 
> Extra-Constitutional socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.  They prefer to "blame the Poor" and cut social services instead of promote the general welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have laws that protect our borders and demand that immigrants come to our country legally.  You and your ilk deny this country to use these laws to make out country a safer one.
Click to expand...

it is our policies that help create the crisis.  why are we wasting our tax money on a useless and alleged War on Drugs, even the right wing refuses to pay for, and prefers to Prove it through tax cut economics.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> If the conservatives control the executive, the Congress and now the Court, why don't they build the wall?


It’s in progress, _sweetie_. They’ve had vendors building prototypes. Once they settle on one and secure funding, they will sign a contract and get to building.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.
> 
> 10USC246 is a fine example.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> 10USC246
> (*b*)The classes of the militia are—
> (*2*)the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​
> Once again you defeat your own position!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organize the unorganized militia!
Click to expand...

Why do you want to violate federal law?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form of political systems, not economic systems, you poorly educated buffoon. You keep confusing the two. You’ll understand better once you take civics in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism not socialism on a national basis!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We _have_ capitalism on a “national basis” (when the Dumbocrats aren’t in charge). Unfortunately, you’re just too stupid to comprehend that you can’t have a “capitalism” government. Governments are forms of _political_ systems, you nitwit. Capitalism is an _economic_ system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism at the border not socialism on a national basis at the border!
Click to expand...

Can’t have “capitalism” at the border you dumb dimwit. Can’t have socialism at the border. Can’t have either in our government as government is political and capitalism and socialism are economic systems.

No matter how many times you repeat that very ignorant, very immature line, you won’t stop looking stupid. Why don’t you try a new approach? Come up with some other idiotic left-wing argument. Ask an adult for help.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> No. you use them for illegal votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to prove all illegals vote blue and not red.
Click to expand...

Well duh. Like _you_, they are here for handouts.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of laws the right wing refuses to acknowledge unless it is about the Poor.
> 
> 10USC246 is a fine example.
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahaha!!!
> 
> 10USC246
> (*b*)The classes of the militia are—
> (*2*)the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​
> Once again you defeat your own position!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organize the unorganized militia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you want to violate federal law?
Click to expand...

lol. That is federal law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is how market friendly our fine, capital border policies should be.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is a form of political systems, not economic systems, you poorly educated buffoon. You keep confusing the two. You’ll understand better once you take civics in high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism not socialism on a national basis!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We _have_ capitalism on a “national basis” (when the Dumbocrats aren’t in charge). Unfortunately, you’re just too stupid to comprehend that you can’t have a “capitalism” government. Governments are forms of _political_ systems, you nitwit. Capitalism is an _economic_ system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> capitalism at the border not socialism on a national basis at the border!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can’t have “capitalism” at the border you dumb dimwit. Can’t have socialism at the border. Can’t have either in our government as government is political and capitalism and socialism are economic systems.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat that very ignorant, very immature line, you won’t stop looking stupid. Why don’t you try a new approach? Come up with some other idiotic left-wing argument. Ask an adult for help.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can.  You don't think so Because socialism on a national basis all you know.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> No. you use them for illegal votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to prove all illegals vote blue and not red.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well duh. Like _you_, they are here for handouts.
Click to expand...

they all seem to work harder than You.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

*Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*

No brainer......right?

Then WHY hasn't the wall been built?

Hmmmmm....


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## danielpalos

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## buckeye45_73

BasicHumanUnit said:


> *Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*
> 
> No brainer......right?
> 
> Then WHY hasn't the wall been built?
> 
> Hmmmmm....


It's called politics, since you're on this board...maybe you can read up on it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes, we can.  You don't think so Because socialism on a national basis all you know.


Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Government is a political system, dumb ass.


----------



## P@triot

BasicHumanUnit said:


> *Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*
> 
> No brainer......right? Then WHY hasn't the wall been built?



Because the left is fully committed to the complete and total destruction of the United States. One of the best ways to achieve that is to ensure more people than a nation can support. It’s basic Cloward & Piven strategy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we can.  You don't think so Because socialism on a national basis all you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Government is a political system, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

they are political systems.  you simply don't know what you are talking about, like usual; but want to be taken seriously anyway.  how, right wing of you.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*
> 
> No brainer......right? Then WHY hasn't the wall been built?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the left is fully committed to the complete and total destruction of the United States. One of the best ways to achieve that is to ensure more people than a nation can support. It’s basic Cloward & Piven strategy.
Click to expand...

the right wing are simply Lousy capitalists.  they prefer income redistribution that favors the Rich, but "Blame the Poor".


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism and capitalism are economic systems.
> 
> 
> 
> they are political systems.
Click to expand...

Dumb shit here thinks capitalism and socialism are “political systems”.


----------



## P@triot

Mexicans paying for the wall, just as *President* *Trump* promised.


> The proposal would theoretically cut down significantly on the number of illegal immigrants receiving federal benefits.


Tax payer’s dollars being diverted away from illegal aliens and being redirected toward helping America. So much winning.

Oklahoma senator targets illegal immigrant welfare, tax credits to fund border wall


----------



## jillian

buckeye45_73 said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*
> 
> No brainer......right?
> 
> Then WHY hasn't the wall been built?
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> It's called politics, since you're on this board...maybe you can read up on it.
Click to expand...


he might also want to read up on reality since his assertion is garbage


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism and capitalism are economic systems.
> 
> 
> 
> they are political systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumb shit here thinks capitalism and socialism are “political systems”.
Click to expand...

they must be if they include political government.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Mexicans paying for the wall, just as *President* *Trump* promised.
> 
> 
> 
> The proposal would theoretically cut down significantly on the number of illegal immigrants receiving federal benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax payer’s dollars being diverted away from illegal aliens and being redirected toward helping America. So much winning.
> 
> Oklahoma senator targets illegal immigrant welfare, tax credits to fund border wall
Click to expand...

We have a general welfare clause not a general badfare clause.  Everyone will be worse off.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Everyone will be worse off.


That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a general welfare clause not a general badfare clause.


The U.S. Constitution is not an international document, snowflake. Our “general welfare” clause does not apply to citizens of Central and South America.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
Click to expand...

a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a general welfare clause not a general badfare clause.
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is not an international document, snowflake. Our “general welfare” clause does not apply to citizens of Central and South America.
Click to expand...

it applies to the US.  We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.


----------



## buckeye45_73

jillian said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*
> 
> No brainer......right?
> 
> Then WHY hasn't the wall been built?
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> It's called politics, since you're on this board...maybe you can read up on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he might also want to read up on reality since his assertion is garbage
Click to expand...

Ah Jillian with more info........seriously can you show me a post where you actually contributed to a discussion?


----------



## buckeye45_73

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
Click to expand...

So why does Obama have a wall if they don't work? or the Vatican? or Israel?

Tell us how a wall is useless


----------



## danielpalos

buckeye45_73 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why does Obama have a wall if they don't work? or the Vatican? or Israel?
> 
> Tell us how a wall is useless
Click to expand...

Private property.  Fences keep pets inside.  The wall is useless for immigration purposes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
Click to expand...

Exactly the recipe this nation needs to restore prosperity, baby!!! Glad to see you're waking up finally.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.


And we agree that Dumbocrats are lousy capitalists. That's why we are hemorrhaging hundreds of billions per year feeding, housing, educating, and providing healthcare for illegal aliens that Dumbocrats allowed to cross the border (and even encouraged).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should not be losing money on border policy.  Only lousy capitalists, do that.
> 
> 
> 
> And we agree that Dumbocrats are lousy capitalists. That's why we are hemorrhaging hundreds of billions per year feeding, housing, educating, and providing healthcare for illegal aliens that Dumbocrats allowed to cross the border (and even encouraged).
Click to expand...

All foreign nationals in the US, should have a federal id. regardless.


----------



## P@triot

*President Trump* continues to deliver...

Trump’s Wall Is Being Built. Slowly. | National Review


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> *President Trump* continues to deliver...
> 
> Trump’s Wall Is Being Built. Slowly. | National Review


lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


That's why Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the majority of the states. We booted out all of the "lousy capitalists".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the majority of the states. We booted out all of the "lousy capitalists".
Click to expand...

the right wing can't read charts, either.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the majority of the states. We booted out all of the "lousy capitalists".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing can't read charts, either.
Click to expand...

While the left-wing simply can’t read.


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why does Obama have a wall if they don't work? or the Vatican? or Israel?
> 
> Tell us how a wall is useless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private property.  Fences keep pets inside.  The wall is useless for immigration purposes.
Click to expand...

Israel, Hungary and Austria beg to differ with you.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the majority of the states. We booted out all of the "lousy capitalists".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing can't read charts, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While the left-wing simply can’t read.
Click to expand...

we have a general welfare clause and a commerce clause; only lousy capitalists lose money on border policies with Those powers available.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will be worse off.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why does Obama have a wall if they don't work? or the Vatican? or Israel?
> 
> Tell us how a wall is useless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private property.  Fences keep pets inside.  The wall is useless for immigration purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, Hungary and Austria beg to differ with you.
Click to expand...

so what; 

We have a Statue of Liberty.  

Any questions?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the left-wing simply can’t read.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause and a commerce clause
Click to expand...

Thank you for *proving* my point.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> so what; *We have a Statue of Liberty*. Any questions?


Yes. Just one. So what? That doesn’t authorize an invasion of the United States.


----------



## Lesh

You've had Congress and the White House for two fucking years.

Nothing was stopping you from building the stupid wall other than the utter stupidity of it


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s true. Every illegal alien trying to break into my nation will be worse off. But *We* *the* *People* don’t care about that, Daniel. We’re sending you back where you belong.
> 
> 
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why does Obama have a wall if they don't work? or the Vatican? or Israel?
> 
> Tell us how a wall is useless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private property.  Fences keep pets inside.  The wall is useless for immigration purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, Hungary and Austria beg to differ with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what;
> 
> We have a Statue of Liberty.
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...

different times create different needs. We no longer need man power to make our country great we now need mind power and money power. The Statue of Liberty is a dinosaur belonging to a soon forgotten age when sweat and labor was valuable.


----------



## Slyhunter

Lesh said:


> You've had Congress and the White House for two fucking years.
> 
> Nothing was stopping you from building the stupid wall other than the utter stupidity of it


and requiring 60% to pass anything in the Senate. You forget that?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the left-wing simply can’t read.
> 
> 
> 
> we have a general welfare clause and a commerce clause
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for *proving* my point.
Click to expand...

what point is that?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; *We have a Statue of Liberty*. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Just one. So what? That doesn’t authorize an invasion of the United States.
Click to expand...

there is no invasion.  refugees from our drug war.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a useless wall and reduction in social services for the Poor, i get it, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> So why does Obama have a wall if they don't work? or the Vatican? or Israel?
> 
> Tell us how a wall is useless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private property.  Fences keep pets inside.  The wall is useless for immigration purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel, Hungary and Austria beg to differ with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what;
> 
> We have a Statue of Liberty.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> different times create different needs. We no longer need man power to make our country great we now need mind power and money power. The Statue of Liberty is a dinosaur belonging to a soon forgotten age when sweat and labor was valuable.
Click to expand...

it is about natural rights.  and, we could fit the entire US population into the State of Texas, with room to spare.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




How come your post omits the GDP impact of illegal immigrants?


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come your post omits the GDP impact of illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

That would only make them look like more of a bad deal.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come your post omits the GDP impact of illegal immigrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would only make them look like more of a bad deal.
Click to expand...



Are you sure...


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come your post omits the GDP impact of illegal immigrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would only make them look like more of a bad deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure...
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come your post omits the GDP impact of illegal immigrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would only make them look like more of a bad deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...



If you had you couldn’t answer that way.


----------



## Lesh

Slyhunter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had Congress and the White House for two fucking years.
> 
> Nothing was stopping you from building the stupid wall other than the utter stupidity of it
> 
> 
> 
> and requiring 60% to pass anything in the Senate. You forget that?
Click to expand...

McConnell nuked everything else. Why wouldn't he nuke that rule as well?


----------



## Clementine

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




Exactly!     Dems don't give a shit about spending money.   Never have and never will.   Their only concern is whether the money they spend will earn them votes or not.    That is why they act like money is no object when promising welfare benefits to all, including illegals who enter this country.    

The left constantly lies about immigration laws.   The claim is that we don't allow enough people to come.   That is false.   Our laws allow for productive people to come here legally but there is a limit.   The limit is designed to serve the best interests of the U.S.

It's inexcusable to insist that people be allowed to enter illegally.   Not a damn one of them should be released into this country.   They will never show up for hearings.    They should be sent back immediately if caught trying to bypass the legal port of entry.   No applying for refugee status or anything else.   If they can't do it legally, then they don't get a damn thing except escorted to the other side of the border.    You know this whole caravan was orchestrated.  Soros is my guess as the guy behind this bullshit.   

When you listened to Obama for 8 years, you would think he was president of the world.   His focus was never on what was best for America, but rather what was best for Muslim countries.   

We shouldn't let Muslims in if they aren't willing to renounce much of Islam, like sharia law.   Sharia law is both the government and religion.    They cannot separate the two and yet want to come here and deny their women rights and they don't want to conform to our laws.   

Many of the illegals in the caravan are not coming because they love America or want to become an American in the true sense.    Some are here for the generous welfare we are known for and some just want to come and help fundamentally transform us into the same kind of shitholes they left.   

We need to stop this.    We need to do what is in our best interests.   For eons, we have sent billions to other countries and what does anyone have to show for it?     The money didn't help the people in those third world hell holes.    The leaders remain wealthy, their military forces are stronger and the people still suffer and stand in bread lines.   Many who want to destroy us were greatly helped by Obama.   

The left wants illegals because they know they will vote and most are likely to vote for those who promise them welfare.   It's really that damn simple.


----------



## otto105

Clementine said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!     Dems don't give a shit about spending money.   Never have and never will.   Their only concern is whether the money they spend will earn them votes or not.    That is why they act like money is no object when promising welfare benefits to all, including illegals who enter this country.
> 
> The left constantly lies about immigration laws.   The claim is that we don't allow enough people to come.   That is false.   Our laws allow for productive people to come here legally but there is a limit.   The limit is designed to serve the best interests of the U.S.
> 
> It's inexcusable to insist that people be allowed to enter illegally.   Not a damn one of them should be released into this country.   They will never show up for hearings.    They should be sent back immediately if caught trying to bypass the legal port of entry.   No applying for refugee status or anything else.   If they can't do it legally, then they don't get a damn thing except escorted to the other side of the border.    You know this whole caravan was orchestrated.  Soros is my guess as the guy behind this bullshit.
> 
> When you listened to Obama for 8 years, you would think he was president of the world.   His focus was never on what was best for America, but rather what was best for Muslim countries.
> 
> We shouldn't let Muslims in if they aren't willing to renounce much of Islam, like sharia law.   Sharia law is both the government and religion.    They cannot separate the two and yet want to come here and deny their women rights and they don't want to conform to our laws.
> 
> Many of the illegals in the caravan are not coming because they love America or want to become an American in the true sense.    Some are here for the generous welfare we are known for and some just want to come and help fundamentally transform us into the same kind of shitholes they left.
> 
> We need to stop this.    We need to do what is in our best interests.   For eons, we have sent billions to other countries and what does anyone have to show for it?     The money didn't help the people in those third world hell holes.    The leaders remain wealthy, their military forces are stronger and the people still suffer and stand in bread lines.   Many who want to destroy us were greatly helped by Obama.
> 
> The left wants illegals because they know they will vote and most are likely to vote for those who promise them welfare.   It's really that damn simple.
Click to expand...



Load of BS


----------



## danielpalos

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come your post omits the GDP impact of illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

a profit motive?  even Texas tried to exempt the Rich, from laws regarding hiring Cheaper labor in the US regardless of citizenship status.


----------



## P@triot

Lesh said:


> You've had Congress and the White House for two fucking years. Nothing was stopping you from building the stupid wall other than the utter stupidity of it


Dumb ass...they’ve been working on it. 

You might want to turn off the left-wing propaganda, learn to think for yourself, and do some actual research. Just say’n.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; *We have a Statue of Liberty*. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Just one. So what? That doesn’t authorize an invasion of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no invasion.  refugees from our drug war.
Click to expand...

When people from another nation march together with the intent on breaching your border, it’s kind of the textbook definition of “invasion”, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; *We have a Statue of Liberty*. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Just one. So what? That doesn’t authorize an invasion of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> refugees from our drug war.
Click to expand...

Uh....the drug war is inside U.S. borders, you nitwit. 

We don’t have jurisdiction outside of U.S. borders. So by your own admission, not only are they *not* “refugees” but they are leaving a safe haven for where the war zone is actually occurring.

God you are a _special_ kind of stupid. But in your desperation, you provide so many laughs.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it is about natural rights.


What does that have to do with us, dumb ass? 

They have to address any “natural rights” issues with their own government - not ours.


----------



## P@triot

Lesh said:


> McConnell nuked everything else. Why wouldn't he nuke that rule as well?


Only one side invoked the “nuclear option” sweetie...and it sure as hell *wasn’t* the Republicans.


----------



## P@triot

otto105 said:


> Load of BS


Wow...you _really_ know how to make a strong argument. 

I especially like how you broke down each section, examined it, and then defeated it with sourced material.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; *We have a Statue of Liberty*. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Just one. So what? That doesn’t authorize an invasion of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no invasion.  refugees from our drug war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people from another nation march together with the intent on breaching your border, it’s kind of the textbook definition of “invasion”, snowflake.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.  only the right wing likes to make up their definitions in a vacuum of special pleading.

Our welfare clause is General not Common.

Congress has the authority regarding entry into the Union.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy, comrade.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; *We have a Statue of Liberty*. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Just one. So what? That doesn’t authorize an invasion of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> refugees from our drug war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh....the drug war is inside U.S. borders, you nitwit.
> 
> We don’t have jurisdiction outside of U.S. borders. So by your own admission, not only are they *not* “refugees” but they are leaving a safe haven for where the war zone is actually occurring.
> 
> God you are a _special_ kind of stupid. But in your desperation, you provide so many laughs.
Click to expand...

nothing but appeals to ignorance?

some allege that our drug war is nothing but Government control over the People, both foreign and domestic.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with us, dumb ass?
> 
> They have to address any “natural rights” issues with their own government - not ours.
Click to expand...

seeking asylum is a natural right and our common law.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Congress has the authority regarding entry into the Union.


I’ve never encountered someone as ignorant as you. Congress is a part of the legislative branch. The executive branch is tasked with both immigration and National Security. That is simply an indisputable fact.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with us, dumb ass?
> 
> They have to address any “natural rights” issues with their own government - not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is *a* *natural* *right*
Click to expand...

Apparently, so is being ignorant (in your limited little mind).

*A.) *Their nation is not war-torn nor experiencing human atrocities. Therefore, they have nothing to seek asylum from.

*B.) *International law dictates that a person seeking asylum must seek it from the nation of the *first* border they reach. In this case, that would be Mexico. Mexico offered all of them asylum. They turned it down. Why? Because they are not seeking asylum. They are seeking to *invade* the United States.

I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish with all of your ignorance and your made up nonsense, but all you are achieving is making yourself look like an idiot and an asshole.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy, comrade.


National Security policy has absolutely nothing to do with economics, snowflake. You _still_ haven’t figured out the difference between political systems and economic systems.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> nothing but appeals to ignorance?


Ignorance appeals to you? Why am I *not* surprised by that?


----------



## toobfreak

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here




Someone makes a profit from burying dead people.  So by your reasoning, we should kill everyone?  The money made from hiring illegals benefits a few and merely slightly offsets the far higher cost of letting all of their ilk into the country in the first place that all the rest of us are forced to pay.

We can build a robot to explore the outer solar system in lieu of astronauts but we can't design a machine to replace Mexicans to pick our produce?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a Commerce Clause.


Nobody is discussing “commerce” right now, dumb ass. We’re discussing National Security.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> seeking asylum is a natural right...


This is going to sting a bit, snowflake. But the truth is quite painful for propaganda driven progressives. They aren’t coming here for “asylum”. They are coming here for handouts. So they are basically like _you_.

'Refugees' Refuse to Come to U.S. After Learning They Will Have to Work


----------



## P@triot

Buh-bye bitches...

Mexican Government Gives Brutal Punishment To Migrants Who Stormed Border


----------



## P@triot

So much for the left-wing narrative that walls don’t work. I see a whole bunch of people standing around because the wall is preventing them from crossing. 

BREAKING, US Forces Begin Firing On Caravan, Migrants Chant Obama Slogan


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has the authority regarding entry into the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never encountered someone as ignorant as you. Congress is a part of the legislative branch. The executive branch is tasked with both immigration and National Security. That is simply an indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

Congress makes the laws.  The general government of the Union is responsible for Entry into the Union.  We should be upgrading Ellis Island.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with us, dumb ass?
> 
> They have to address any “natural rights” issues with their own government - not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> seeking asylum is *a* *natural* *right*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, so is being ignorant (in your limited little mind).
> 
> *A.) *Their nation is not war-torn nor experiencing human atrocities. Therefore, they have nothing to seek asylum from.
> 
> *B.) *International law dictates that a person seeking asylum must seek it from the nation of the *first* border they reach. In this case, that would be Mexico. Mexico offered all of them asylum. They turned it down. Why? Because they are not seeking asylum. They are seeking to *invade* the United States.
> 
> I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish with all of your ignorance and your made up nonsense, but all you are achieving is making yourself look like an idiot and an asshole.
Click to expand...

our drug war is a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy, comrade.
> 
> 
> 
> National Security policy has absolutely nothing to do with economics, snowflake. You _still_ haven’t figured out the difference between political systems and economic systems.
Click to expand...

this is not about national security.  it is about, Entry into the Union.  Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is discussing “commerce” right now, dumb ass. We’re discussing National Security.
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy.  Every Thing cannot be about National Security, except for national socialists.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> seeking asylum is a natural right...
> 
> 
> 
> This is going to sting a bit, snowflake. But the truth is quite painful for propaganda driven progressives. They aren’t coming here for “asylum”. They are coming here for handouts. So they are basically like _you_.
> 
> 'Refugees' Refuse to Come to U.S. After Learning They Will Have to Work
Click to expand...

How many people refused to come the US from the Old World, Because they would have to work?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> So much for the left-wing narrative that walls don’t work. I see a whole bunch of people standing around because the wall is preventing them from crossing.
> 
> BREAKING, US Forces Begin Firing On Caravan, Migrants Chant Obama Slogan


they want to apply for asylum.


----------



## joaquinmiller

How much would it cost to throw a giant white sheet over the Statue of Liberty, and announce we're not the beacon of freedom anymore?


----------



## The Original Tree

*I think we should use land mines, moats, and k-9 units.  Only the land mines should be filled with confetti...to welcome the invaders to America.  That and a welfare application a get out of jail card and a free bus pass to the nearest sanctuary city.*


----------



## joaquinmiller

Maybe just replace Lady Liberty's torch with a Confederate Flag, and replace the poem with, 'POC, go home!'


----------



## danielpalos

joaquinmiller said:


> How much would it cost to throw a giant white sheet over the Statue of Liberty, and announce we're not the beacon of freedom anymore?


we get to "Blame the Right Wing".


----------



## joaquinmiller

danielpalos said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it cost to throw a giant white sheet over the Statue of Liberty, and announce we're not the beacon of freedom anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> we get to "Blame the Right Wing".
Click to expand...


They'd probably go for returning Lady Liberty to the French, along with some snide, ignorant remarks.


----------



## danielpalos

joaquinmiller said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it cost to throw a giant white sheet over the Statue of Liberty, and announce we're not the beacon of freedom anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> we get to "Blame the Right Wing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'd probably go for returning Lady Liberty to the French, along with some snide, ignorant remarks.
Click to expand...

Everybody should know then, the Right Wing is not about liberty or freedom; they just claim that for political propaganda and rhetoric purposes.


----------



## P@triot

joaquinmiller said:


> Maybe just replace Lady Liberty's torch with a Confederate Flag, and replace the poem with, 'POC, go home!'


Yeah...because the Statue of Liberty suddenly means “we are a lawless nation of anarchy”.

Good grief, you whiny left-wing bitches make crazier and crazier comments the more desperate you get to demonize law abiding actions.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Everybody should know then, the Right Wing is not about liberty or freedom; they just claim that for political propaganda and rhetoric purposes.


What are you talking about, snowflake? Those Honduran dirt-bags are in complete “liberty” and “freedom” as we speak. Except for those that broke the law.

We know you progressives are lawless thugs - but we still uphold the law on this side of the aisle.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just replace Lady Liberty's torch with a Confederate Flag, and replace the poem with, 'POC, go home!'
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because the Statue of Liberty suddenly means “we are a lawless nation of anarchy”.
> 
> Good grief, you whiny left-wing bitches make crazier and crazier comments the more desperate you get to demonize law abiding actions.
Click to expand...

lol.  Upgrade Ellis Island so we don't have these problems.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody should know then, the Right Wing is not about liberty or freedom; they just claim that for political propaganda and rhetoric purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about, snowflake? Those Honduran dirt-bags are in complete “liberty” and “freedom” as we speak. Except for those that broke the law.
> 
> We know you progressives are lawless thugs - but we still uphold the law on this side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

The law is, we have a welfare clause General but only a defense clause Common.


----------



## joaquinmiller

P@triot said:


> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe just replace Lady Liberty's torch with a Confederate Flag, and replace the poem with, 'POC, go home!'
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...because the Statue of Liberty suddenly means “we are a lawless nation of anarchy”.
> 
> Good grief, you whiny left-wing bitches make crazier and crazier comments the more desperate you get to demonize law abiding actions.
Click to expand...


Get a grip, nellie.  A border wall and the Statue of Liberty send opposing messages.  If you want a wall, man up and send the Statue back to France.  You terror-stricken righties don't need it or deserve it.


----------



## danielpalos

Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Upgrade Ellis Island so we don't have these problems.


What “problem”? We don’t need to “upgrade” Ellis Island. We just need to enforce the law and out you whiny little fascists in your place. That’s it. That’s all we have to do.


----------



## P@triot

joaquinmiller said:


> A border wall and the Statue of Liberty send opposing messages.  If you want a wall, man up and send the Statue back to France.  You terror-stricken righties don't need it or deserve it.


Only in the mind of the ignorant left-wing nut jobs. The Statue of Liberty does not authorize a lawless society. Never did. Never will. Next?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.


Capitalism is our economic system. Border policy is driven by our political system (a representative republic).


----------



## bripat9643

joaquinmiller said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joaquinmiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much would it cost to throw a giant white sheet over the Statue of Liberty, and announce we're not the beacon of freedom anymore?
> 
> 
> 
> we get to "Blame the Right Wing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They'd probably go for returning Lady Liberty to the French, along with some snide, ignorant remarks.
Click to expand...

The Statue of Liberty never had anything to do with immigration, moron.  The poem by Emma Lazarus was added after the fact.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island so we don't have these problems.
> 
> 
> 
> What “problem”? We don’t need to “upgrade” Ellis Island. We just need to enforce the law and out you whiny little fascists in your place. That’s it. That’s all we have to do.
Click to expand...

nothing but laws concerning socialism on a national basis?

free trade and less regulation at the border!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy and blame the Poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is our economic system. Border policy is driven by our political system (a representative republic).
Click to expand...

lol.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make money off of illegals.  Perhaps the leftwing 1% douche bags like George Soros and Hillary do, but I the average worker doesn't.  He gets fucked up the ass.
Click to expand...


I have never been affected by illegal immigrants negatively or positively.   Can you share your experiences? You have curiosity.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Spare_change said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.
> 
> Grow up.
Click to expand...


Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.

The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

nat4900 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucked up "rationale" by middle-finger-baby.......As if that "beautiful wall" is going to save us from all those darkies coming in in tunnels, airplanes,ships, overstaying visas, etc........
> 
> Are ALL right wingers THIS stupid?
Click to expand...


Mostly.  Are you talking about the Reagan Conservative Tea Party nutjobs That hi-jacked the Republican Party?  Yes. They really are that stupid.

Under Reagan, the national debt increased more than under any other president except Franklin Roosevelt.  He is considered a conservative because he lowered taxes and increased spending.  In personal finance, this would make you a bad leader of your household.  In business, this type of leadership would force you to close.  In government, you are considered the greatest president and the greatest conservative  this country has ever had.

Yes. Those who call themselves conservatives are not conservative in the least and they are very stupid. Very very very stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

vasuderatorrent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make money off of illegals.  Perhaps the leftwing 1% douche bags like George Soros and Hillary do, but I the average worker doesn't.  He gets fucked up the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never been affected by illegal immigrants negatively or positively.   Can you share your experiences? You have curiosity.
Click to expand...

I have to compete with hundreds of thousands of software coolies from India.  I'd be making twice as much as I do if it wasn't for all the cheap labor imported from India.


----------



## bripat9643

vasuderatorrent said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.
> 
> The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.
Click to expand...

Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.


----------



## danielpalos

a wall doesn't solve any problems.  

new cities in more optimal locations, does.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

bripat9643 said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.
> 
> The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.
Click to expand...


Example: New Ferrari costs $75,000.  If you buy it you will save 15 miles to the gallon.  I will also give you $10,000 off if you buy it today.  How much do you save?

Hint: You don’t.  You save more by forgoing the purchase.


----------



## g5000

Since this topic started, the cost of illegals has risen to eleventy thousand billion dollars.

In other news, Daffy Donald Trump has cost us $1.3 TRILLION this year alone!

US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a wall doesn't solve any problems.


*All* evidence of human history to the contrary...


----------



## P@triot

g5000 said:


> Since this topic started, the cost of illegals has risen to eleventy thousand billion dollars.
> 
> In other news, Daffy Donald Trump has cost us $1.3 TRILLION this year alone!
> 
> US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018


Pennies compared to your messiah, MaObama. He borrowed more than that his first week in office! And all you did was drop to your knees and offer to service him.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> a wall doesn't solve any problems.
> 
> new cities in more optimal locations, does.


It solves our problem of how to keep out the trash.


----------



## P@triot

*President* *Trump* keeps winning exactly as he promised!

Supreme Court hands Trump a victory over environmental groups trying to shut down the border wall


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall doesn't solve any problems.
> 
> 
> 
> *All* evidence of human history to the contrary...
Click to expand...

lol.  The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall doesn't solve any problems.
> 
> new cities in more optimal locations, does.
> 
> 
> 
> It solves our problem of how to keep out the trash.
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall doesn't solve any problems.
> 
> 
> 
> *All* evidence of human history to the contrary...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.
Click to expand...

Spartans killed or enslaved their illegal aliens.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a wall doesn't solve any problems.
> 
> 
> 
> *All* evidence of human history to the contrary...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spartans killed or enslaved their illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

They also didn't believe in abortion laws.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.


The Spartans were *defeated*....


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.
> 
> 
> 
> The Spartans were *defeated*....
Click to expand...

Nobody knows how to defeat their own position like Daniel Dummy!


----------



## P@triot

Video doesn’t lie (the left does)...

BOMBSHELL: Filmmaker Ami Horowitz blows the lid off media's deceit about the migrant caravan


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.


The Spartans were *defeated*....   


> Sparta's defeat by Thebes in the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC ended Sparta's prominent role in Greece.


1. Girls are AMAZING. I’m happy to be “lumped in” with them.

2. You’ll learn more about girls once you’re able to talk to them Daniel Dummy

3. Sparta was defeated. American won’t make the same idiotic mistake


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Spartans claimed only "girly men" need walls.
> 
> 
> 
> The Spartans were *defeated*....
Click to expand...

so was everyone else in the area.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Video doesn’t lie (the left does)...
> 
> BOMBSHELL: Filmmaker Ami Horowitz blows the lid off media's deceit about the migrant caravan


We have a Constitution.  Our welfare clause is General not Common.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Congress really is delegated the power to solve this dilemma in a market friendly manner.

We should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure and generating revenue to pay for it.


----------



## regent

P@triot said:


> Video doesn’t lie (the left does)...
> 
> BOMBSHELL: Filmmaker Ami Horowitz blows the lid off media's deceit about the migrant caravan


A few time I've had the feeling that some commercials sort of lied.  Please tell us that commercials don't lie . I've even had the feeling at rare times that posters don't tell the exact truth either.


----------



## bripat9643

vasuderatorrent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.
> 
> The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example: New Ferrari costs $75,000.  If you buy it you will save 15 miles to the gallon.  I will also give you $10,000 off if you buy it today.  How much do you save?
> 
> Hint: You don’t.  You save more by forgoing the purchase.
Click to expand...

Of course, i never bought a Ferrari, so your example is bogus from the starting gate.

Here's a better example.

A lb of hamburger normally costs $4.00.  Pik-N-Save has it on sale for $3.00/lb   Money saved = $1.00


----------



## P@triot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Most don’t believe it will save us money.


Yeah....we have a name for those people: left-wing partisan idiots.

Rational people understand that this will save us almost $150 *billion* per _year_.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> A few time I've had the feeling that some commercials sort of lied.


It’s funny you say that Reg. A few times I’ve had the feeling like you might come around and actually engage in discussion like a mature adult. But then you go and post desperate nonsense like this and I realize...nope!

A commercial is not “video” in the context that we are talking here. Neither are Hollywood movies. Of course, you already know this, but you can’t bring yourself to accept the fact that the ideology you bought into is a fraud, just yet. So you resort to childish stuff like this.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

bripat9643 said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The wall will cost us nothing. That's what trumpery said and he would never lie.
> 
> Right?
> 
> [emoji849]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.
> 
> The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example: New Ferrari costs $75,000.  If you buy it you will save 15 miles to the gallon.  I will also give you $10,000 off if you buy it today.  How much do you save?
> 
> Hint: You don’t.  You save more by forgoing the purchase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, i never bought a Ferrari, so your example is bogus from the starting gate.
> 
> Here's a better example.
> 
> A lb of hamburger normally costs $4.00.  Pik-N-Save has it on sale for $3.00/lb   Money saved = $1.00
Click to expand...


You spent $3.00. You saved $0.00. If you don’t understand that concept then I can’t teach it to you.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

P@triot said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....we have a name for those people: left-wing partisan idiots.
> 
> Rational people understand that this will save us almost $150 *billion* per _year_.
Click to expand...


Don’t trust everything a politician says even if he is from the same political party. People lie/make wild assumptions in order to get their way.


----------



## P@triot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Don’t trust everything a politician says even if he is from the same political party. People lie/make wild assumptions in order to get their way.


I don’t trust _anything_ a politician says. I don’t get my information politicians.


----------



## bripat9643

vasuderatorrent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssst --- spending $21B and saving $143B doesn't mean it cost us money ---- it means we made money on the deal.
> 
> Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.
> 
> The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example: New Ferrari costs $75,000.  If you buy it you will save 15 miles to the gallon.  I will also give you $10,000 off if you buy it today.  How much do you save?
> 
> Hint: You don’t.  You save more by forgoing the purchase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, i never bought a Ferrari, so your example is bogus from the starting gate.
> 
> Here's a better example.
> 
> A lb of hamburger normally costs $4.00.  Pik-N-Save has it on sale for $3.00/lb   Money saved = $1.00
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent $3.00. You saved $0.00. If you don’t understand that concept then I can’t teach it to you.
Click to expand...

Apparently, your theory is that the only way to save money is to give up eating.

You're an imbecile.


----------



## danielpalos

Capitalism, what is that; sayeth the Right Wing.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

bripat9643 said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most don’t believe it will save us money.  Those are words not dollars.  When your wife using a stack of coupons to save money, you don’t actually get money to deposit in your bank account.  You actually lose money because she bought stuff.
> 
> The words of a spendaholic or a politician isn’t indicative of reality in most cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Example: New Ferrari costs $75,000.  If you buy it you will save 15 miles to the gallon.  I will also give you $10,000 off if you buy it today.  How much do you save?
> 
> Hint: You don’t.  You save more by forgoing the purchase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, i never bought a Ferrari, so your example is bogus from the starting gate.
> 
> Here's a better example.
> 
> A lb of hamburger normally costs $4.00.  Pik-N-Save has it on sale for $3.00/lb   Money saved = $1.00
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent $3.00. You saved $0.00. If you don’t understand that concept then I can’t teach it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, your theory is that the only way to save money is to give up eating.
> 
> You're an imbecile.
Click to expand...


I thought this was about a wall, not food.  Who is the imbecile?


----------



## bripat9643

vasuderatorrent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only an idiot would claim you don't save money by paying less for the stuff you normally buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example: New Ferrari costs $75,000.  If you buy it you will save 15 miles to the gallon.  I will also give you $10,000 off if you buy it today.  How much do you save?
> 
> Hint: You don’t.  You save more by forgoing the purchase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, i never bought a Ferrari, so your example is bogus from the starting gate.
> 
> Here's a better example.
> 
> A lb of hamburger normally costs $4.00.  Pik-N-Save has it on sale for $3.00/lb   Money saved = $1.00
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent $3.00. You saved $0.00. If you don’t understand that concept then I can’t teach it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, your theory is that the only way to save money is to give up eating.
> 
> You're an imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought this was about a wall, not food.  Who is the imbecile?
Click to expand...

You are, obviously.  If I was to behave as you do, I would say "this is about a wall, not a Ferrari."

You're too stupid to continue breathing.


----------



## P@triot

More proof of the radicalization of the left...



 
In less than a decade, little old Chuck went from supporting the US and upholding our laws to an anti-American position that advocates violating our laws.


----------



## TheDude

Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??



But but but but but but but but a wall doesn't work.  They've been instructed for thousands of years, yet people still install them as if they have value.


----------



## P@triot

Just imagine if we put that money towards building the wall so that we didn’t have to perpetually support these parasites.


> LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A projected *$650* *million* *in* *welfare* benefits will be distributed *to* *illegal* *alien* parents in 2013, county officials said Monday.


And that is just *one* county in *one* state. If we built the wall, it would pay for itself in 2 months.

Undocumented LA County Parents On Pace To Receive $650M In Welfare Benefits


----------



## danielpalos

Upgrading Ellis Island is more cost effective.  Only the right wing doesn't believe in generating revenue only Spending.


----------



## P@triot

None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.


> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.


Build the wall.

MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
Click to expand...

abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
Click to expand...

That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
Click to expand...

help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
Click to expand...

motion sensors and automatic machine guns.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
Click to expand...

we no longer take the right wing seriously about natural rights in abortion threads.


----------



## Lesh

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
Click to expand...

Get back to me when adults want to discuss this


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> 
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we no longer take the right wing seriously about natural rights in abortion threads.
Click to expand...

Who is we dipshit. And this is not an abortion thread.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.


Wait...you already claimed they were constitutional in another thread when you declared that “General Welfare” clause made the F.B.I. constitutional.

Why do you continue to talk out of both side of your mouth? You can’t have it both ways. Either something must be “expressly declared” in the constitution or the vague “General Welfare” authorizes it. Which is it, snowflake?


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> More proof of the radicalization of the left...
> View attachment 234888
> In less than a decade, little old Chuck went from supporting the US and upholding our laws to an anti-American position that advocates violating our laws.



Take note of the flexibility of Chuck's beliefs.  He goes from holding one position, then the exact opposite in a few years.  He can make his mind believe whatever he wants it to believe. 

He is the sleaziest and most loathsome kind of politician there is.


----------



## Slyhunter

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...you already claimed they were constitutional in another thread when you declared that “General Welfare” clause made the F.B.I. constitutional.
> 
> Why do you continue to talk out of both side of your mouth? You can’t have it both ways. Either something must be “expressly declared” in the constitution or the vague “General Welfare” authorizes it. Which is it, snowflake?
Click to expand...

Daniel just keeps repeating the same phrases over and over again. Like how nobody listens to Republicans in threads about abortion but the thread isn't about abortion.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...you already claimed they were constitutional in another thread when you declared that “General Welfare” clause made the F.B.I. constitutional.
> 
> Why do you continue to talk out of both side of your mouth? You can’t have it both ways. Either something must be “expressly declared” in the constitution or the vague “General Welfare” authorizes it. Which is it, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daniel just keeps repeating the same phrases over and over again. Like how nobody listens to Republicans in threads about abortion but the thread isn't about abortion.
Click to expand...

I think Daniel is semi-retarded.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...you already claimed they were constitutional in another thread when you declared that “General Welfare” clause made the F.B.I. constitutional.
> 
> Why do you continue to talk out of both side of your mouth? You can’t have it both ways. Either something must be “expressly declared” in the constitution or the vague “General Welfare” authorizes it. Which is it, snowflake?
Click to expand...

investigating federal crimes provides for the general welfare.  our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror only promote the general malfare, not the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...you already claimed they were constitutional in another thread when you declared that “General Welfare” clause made the F.B.I. constitutional.
> 
> Why do you continue to talk out of both side of your mouth? You can’t have it both ways. Either something must be “expressly declared” in the constitution or the vague “General Welfare” authorizes it. Which is it, snowflake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daniel just keeps repeating the same phrases over and over again. Like how nobody listens to Republicans in threads about abortion but the thread isn't about abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think Daniel is semi-retarded.
Click to expand...

the right wing is just too dumb.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> I think Daniel is semi-retarded.


I’m fairly certain he is *fully* retarded.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> investigating federal crimes provides for the general welfare.  our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror only promote the general malfare, not the general welfare.


Dumb ass...when the F.B.I. is working on crime cases they are “investigating federal crimes” (which you just said is ok because it “provides for the general welfare”). And when the F.B.I. is working on drug cases they are “investigating federal crimes” (which you just said is ok because it “provides for the general welfare”). And when the F.B.I. is working on terrorism cases they are “investigating federal crimes” (which you just said is ok because it “provides for the general welfare”).

You continue to completely contradict yourself - which is hilarious. It’s why nobody takes you seriously here. It’s also why most people here think you are retarded.


----------



## charwin95

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two convicted sex offenders and two MS-13 gang members this week — and all of them were previously deported from the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
Click to expand...


We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Doesn't this thread just serve to prove our government WANTS all the illegal immigration possible?
How could that be?
Maybe the same way the Patriot Act and Civil Forfeiture and Warrantless Searches are all taking place today (and ALL UnConstitutional)
Maybe the same way ObamaCare was passed (also UnConstitutional)
So, maybe, just maybe...the government is actually not Of The People OR For The People at all anymore?

When was the last time Congress did ANYTHING that actually benefited We The People instead of foreign interests, Special interests or large Corporations first and foremost?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Daniel is semi-retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m fairly certain he is *fully* retarded.
Click to expand...

even full retard can still win arguments with the right wing.  echelon order could be an option.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> investigating federal crimes provides for the general welfare.  our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror only promote the general malfare, not the general welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass...when the F.B.I. is working on crime cases they are “investigating federal crimes” (which you just said is ok because it “provides for the general welfare”). And when the F.B.I. is working on drug cases they are “investigating federal crimes” (which you just said is ok because it “provides for the general welfare”). And when the F.B.I. is working on terrorism cases they are “investigating federal crimes” (which you just said is ok because it “provides for the general welfare”).
> 
> You continue to completely contradict yourself - which is hilarious. It’s why nobody takes you seriously here. It’s also why most people here think you are retarded.
Click to expand...

Government ensures Order not Chaos.


----------



## Aponi

Spare_change said:


> Damn ... there you go confusing the left with facts again!!
> 
> Don't you know the left can't count past 20? Well, the men can count to 21, (probably closer to 20 1/2) .... ??


----------



## Aponi

Yes confusing the left with facts is awful they hate it


----------



## Slyhunter

charwin95 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these animals have the opportunity to cross if the wall exists.
> Build the wall.
> 
> MS-13 gang members, child sex offenders, arrested by US Border Patrol agents
> 
> 
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.
Click to expand...

It's not up to us to feed the world's poor either.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> abolish the drug war and build new housing in Latin America.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to us to feed the world's poor either.
Click to expand...

our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s unconstitutional. Not our job to build on foreign lands. The constitutional answer is to build the wall. Keep the filthy thugs out.
> 
> 
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to us to feed the world's poor either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.
Click to expand...

For American Citizens maybe, not for foreigners.


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> help fund local housing projects; somebody could make money.  let's abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are not expressly declared in our Constitution.  And, we know how much the right wing alleges to be, Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to us to feed the world's poor either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For American Citizens maybe, not for foreigners.
Click to expand...

we don't have a general defense clause nor a general warfare clause nor is there any express declaration of promotion of it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.


According to *you*, it must be “explicit” or it is *not* constitutional. You’ve stated dozens and dozens of times here on USMB that the war on drugs and the war on terror is unconstitutional because we don’t have an explicit clause for them in the U.S. Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, you ignorant dolt. Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.
> 
> 
> 
> According to *you*, it must be “explicit” or it is *not* constitutional. You’ve stated dozens and dozens of times here on USMB that the war on drugs and the war on terror is unconstitutional because we don’t have an explicit clause for them in the U.S. Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, you ignorant dolt. Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is expressly declared General.  That means, solutions not excuses.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General.


So you’ve just defeated yourself. The “declared *general*” power of the “welfare clause” clearly grants the federal government unlimited power to wage a war on terror, drugs, and crime.

You lose. As always.


----------



## easyt65

The Democrats are standing with illegals instead of American citizens, shutting down the government over four one-hundredths of 1% of our deficit


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General.
> 
> 
> 
> So you’ve just defeated yourself. The “declared *general*” power of the “welfare clause” clearly grants the federal government unlimited power to wage a war on terror, drugs, and crime.
> 
> You lose. As always.
Click to expand...

it says welfare not warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> The Democrats are standing with illegals instead of American citizens, shutting down the government over four one-hundredths of 1% of our deficit


your wall is worthless; let it go.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats are standing with illegals instead of American citizens, shutting down the government over four one-hundredths of 1% of our deficit
> 
> 
> 
> your wall is worthless; let it go.
Click to expand...

 so you and Democrats are saying ensuring our sovereignty, protecting and securing our borders, and protecting Americans are worthless...


----------



## easyt65

95% of illegal immigrant crossing is reduced everywhere a barrier or fence is put up.  Democrats recently demonstrated that they would rather pay 12 billion dollars to Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, and other nations who are facilitating the illegal Invasion against the United States than pay 5 billion to stop it.


----------



## easyt65

Democrats are standing with illegals and are shutting down the federal government to ensure illegal immigration continues rather than stand with a president of the United States who is attempting to ensure our nation's sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American citizens.... things Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama all voted for in 2007.

It is just that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats are standing with illegals instead of American citizens, shutting down the government over four one-hundredths of 1% of our deficit
> 
> 
> 
> your wall is worthless; let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you and Democrats are saying ensuring our sovereignty, protecting and securing our borders, and protecting Americans are worthless...
Click to expand...

there is no express wall building power.  We have a Statue of Liberty and should be upgrading Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.


----------



## easyt65

4/100 of 1 percent..

Democrats spent $1 trillion dollars on a President Obama failed stimulus bill that contained over seven thousand pieces of Democratic party pork that cost a lot more than 5 billion dollars on crap... like funding an experiment to see why the sex life of a homosexual Argentinian male was somehow better than the sex life of a heterosexual male American...

But Democrats will not spend 5 billion dollars to ensure our sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American lives by stimming the flow of illegal immigration into this country...


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> 95% of illegal immigrant crossing is reduced everywhere a barrier or fence is put up.  Democrats recently demonstrated that they would rather pay 12 billion dollars to Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, and other nations who are facilitating the illegal Invasion against the United States than pay 5 billion to stop it.


our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worthless if we need walls.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> Democrats are standing with illegals and are shutting down the federal government to ensure illegal immigration continues rather than stand with a president of the United States who is attempting to ensure our nation's sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American citizens.... things Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama all voted for in 2007.
> 
> It is just that simple.


this is an express power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
There is no express wall building power.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> 4/100 of 1 percent..
> 
> Democrats spent $1 trillion dollars on a President Obama failed stimulus bill that contained over seven thousand pieces of Democratic party pork vet cost a lot more fin 5 billion dollars on crap... like funding an experiment to see why the sex life of a homosexual Argentinian male was somehow better than the sex life of a heterosexual male American...
> 
> But Democrats will not spend 5 billion dollars to ensure our sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American lives by stimming the flow of illegal immigration into this country...


We subscribe to Capitalism.  We should have no illegal problem under capitalism with our commerce clause.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4/100 of 1 percent..
> 
> Democrats spent $1 trillion dollars on a President Obama failed stimulus bill that contained over seven thousand pieces of Democratic party pork vet cost a lot more fin 5 billion dollars on crap... like funding an experiment to see why the sex life of a homosexual Argentinian male was somehow better than the sex life of a heterosexual male American...
> 
> But Democrats will not spend 5 billion dollars to ensure our sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American lives by stimming the flow of illegal immigration into this country...
> 
> 
> 
> We subscribe to Capitalism.  We should have no illegal problem under capitalism with our commerce clause.
Click to expand...

We should and should not have a lot of things, but the Democrats continue to facilitate an advocate for illegal immigration while opposing ensuring our sovereignty, enforcing our existing immigration laws, securing our borders, and protecting American citizens...


----------



## easyt65

Capitalism is also not tasked by the United States Constitution to secure our borders and protect American citizens


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are standing with illegals and are shutting down the federal government to ensure illegal immigration continues rather than stand with a president of the United States who is attempting to ensure our nation's sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American citizens.... things Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama all voted for in 2007.
> 
> It is just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> this is an express power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> There is no express wall building power.
Click to expand...

We already have an existing immigration law and path to naturalization, but the problem is Democrats are four non enforcement of existing US immigration law and have proven they are accomplices a
In the illegal invasion happening on our Southern border


----------



## Lesh

easyt65 said:


> Democrats spent $1 trillion dollars on a President Obama failed stimulus bill



Actually 800 billion over three years...and it saved the economy

Trump just gave away almost twice that to the rich in his "tax cut"


----------



## Slyhunter

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> motion sensors and automatic machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not up to us to feed the world's poor either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For American Citizens maybe, not for foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general defense clause nor a general warfare clause nor is there any express declaration of promotion of it.
Click to expand...

Protect and defend America from all Enemies both Domestic and abroad.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4/100 of 1 percent..
> 
> Democrats spent $1 trillion dollars on a President Obama failed stimulus bill that contained over seven thousand pieces of Democratic party pork vet cost a lot more fin 5 billion dollars on crap... like funding an experiment to see why the sex life of a homosexual Argentinian male was somehow better than the sex life of a heterosexual male American...
> 
> But Democrats will not spend 5 billion dollars to ensure our sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American lives by stimming the flow of illegal immigration into this country...
> 
> 
> 
> We subscribe to Capitalism.  We should have no illegal problem under capitalism with our commerce clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should and should not have a lot of things, but the Democrats continue to facilitate an advocate for illegal immigration while opposing ensuring our sovereignty, enforcing our existing immigration laws, securing our borders, and protecting American citizens...
Click to expand...

don't know what you mean.  no one is advocating for illegal immigration.  this is the express power we can hold Congress to:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
There is no express wall building power that can impede that obligation.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> Capitalism is also not tasked by the United States Constitution to secure our borders and protect American citizens


Our welfare clause is general not common.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are standing with illegals and are shutting down the federal government to ensure illegal immigration continues rather than stand with a president of the United States who is attempting to ensure our nation's sovereignty, to secure our borders, and to protect American citizens.... things Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama all voted for in 2007.
> 
> It is just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> this is an express power delegated to Congress:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> There is no express wall building power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have an existing immigration law and path to naturalization, but the problem is Democrats are four non enforcement of existing US immigration law and have proven they are accomplices a
> In the illegal invasion happening on our Southern border
Click to expand...

this is what Congress must do:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_


----------



## danielpalos

Slyhunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> charwin95 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not in the business of murdering hungry people.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not up to us to feed the world's poor either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our welfare clause is General; there must be a solution that promotes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For American Citizens maybe, not for foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't have a general defense clause nor a general warfare clause nor is there any express declaration of promotion of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protect and defend America from all Enemies both Domestic and abroad.
Click to expand...

lol.  we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> this is what Congress must do:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_


They did. We have one. Democrats refuse to abide by it, refuse to enforce existing Immigration laws, and facilitate the violation of our immigration laws.  For that reason, they are as big of a threat to the US as the illegals who break our laws by entrting the country illegally.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> lol.  we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.


20+ million illegal invaders already in this country, 1500 more every day, violent illegals tearing down our fences and barriers, scaling walls, attempting to physically force their way into the country, and attacking US personnel when approached by those agents is not a 'refugee' problem - it is a defense problem.  I guess you think they all have to be wearing the same uniform for that to be the case....


----------



## Lesh

Little snowflake...the sky is not falling


----------



## WEATHER53

$500 per illegal  per every single  day payable for housing, medical, food, incarceration and other forms of assistance.
10-20% will recontribute that back based on work beneficial to American society.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is what Congress must do:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_
> 
> 
> 
> They did. We have one. Democrats refuse to abide by it, refuse to enforce existing Immigration laws, and facilitate the violation of our immigration laws.  For that reason, they are as big of a threat to the US as the illegals who break our laws by entrting the country illegally.
Click to expand...

you miss the point.  immigration is not a term used in our federal Constitution.  

this is the rule: _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 20+ million illegal invaders already in this country, 1500 more every day, violent illegals tearing down our fences and barriers, scaling walls, attempting to physically force their way into the country, and attacking US personnel when approached by those agents is not a 'refugee' problem - it is a defense problem.  I guess you think they all have to be wearing the same uniform for that to be the case....
Click to expand...

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.  the right wing is simply, capitally worthless.


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> $500 per illegal  per every single  day payable for housing, medical, food, incarceration and other forms of assistance.
> 10-20% will recontribute that back based on work beneficial to American society.


we have a commerce clause; why are we losing money on border policy.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> we have a commerce clause; why are we losing money on border policy.


Because Democrats have refused to enforce existing US Immigration Laws, have incentivized illegal border crossing, have facilitated the continuous illegal invasion, have aided / abetted / funded Sanctuary Cities, and are against basically sup[porting any policy or law that would end illegal immigration WHILE illegally registering illegals to vote and counting illegals' voted during US elections (as was discovered in Broward County - only the latest proven example).


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why are we losing money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Because Democrats have refused to enforce existing US Immigration Laws, have incentivized illegal border crossing, have facilitated the continuous illegal invasion, have aided / abetted / funded Sanctuary Cities, and are against basically sup[porting any policy or law that would end illegal immigration WHILE illegally registering illegals to vote and counting illegals' voted during US elections (as was discovered in Broward County - only the latest proven example).
Click to expand...

the power delegated is for an uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> the power delegated is for an uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.


There is a process for naturalization, but illegals do not want to go through the process, do not want to wait, and thus continue to come across illegally.  Even the majority of naturalized citizens in this country approve of Illegal Immigration, by-passing the process, and what the Democrats are doing.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the power delegated is for an uniform rule of naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a process for naturalization, but illegals do not want to go through the process, do not want to wait, and thus continue to come across illegally.  Even the majority of naturalized citizens in this country approve of Illegal Immigration, by-passing the process, and what the Democrats are doing.
Click to expand...

it can't be illegal to seek naturalization.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> it can't be illegal to seek naturalization.


Thanks for that bit of Liberal/Snowflake/Gruber_ 'wisdom'_


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't be illegal to seek naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that bit of Liberal/Snowflake/Gruber_ 'wisdom'_
Click to expand...

nothing but right wing appeals to emotion instead of morals.


----------



## easyt65

danielpalos said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't be illegal to seek naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that bit of Liberal/Snowflake/Gruber_ 'wisdom'_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but right wing appeals to emotion instead of morals.
Click to expand...

Snowflakes always want to act based on emotions.

I have pointed out that the FACT we have both a Naturalization process and existing Immigration Laws.   I have pointed out the FACT that Democrats have proven through their actions that they are FOR Open Borders, FOR Illegal Immigration, AGAINST Enforcement of an existing Naturalization Process and AGAINST enforcement of existing Immigration Law, FOR supporting and funding Federal Law-Violating Criminal-hiding/protecting Sanctuary Cities...

You continue to respond with emotional dribble like _'it can't be illegal to seek naturalization'.   _You SAY things like 'nothing but right wing appeals to emotion' despite all the evidence to the contrary proving you wrong but you expect it to be taken as reality because YOU SAY SO.

You're as mad as the Mad Hatter, an unstable ranting puppet, and a waste of time....

Merry Christmas, snowflake.


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it can't be illegal to seek naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that bit of Liberal/Snowflake/Gruber_ 'wisdom'_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but right wing appeals to emotion instead of morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflakes always want to act based on emotions.
> 
> I have pointed out that the FACT we have both a Naturalization process and existing Immigration Laws.   I have pointed out the FACT that Democrats have proven through their actions that they are FOR Open Borders, FOR Illegal Immigration, AGAINST Enforcement of an existing Naturalization Process and AGAINST enforcement of existing Immigration Law, FOR supporting and funding Federal Law-Violating Criminal-hiding/protecting Sanctuary Cities...
> 
> You continue to respond with emotional dribble like _'it can't be illegal to seek naturalization'.   _You SAY things like 'nothing but right wing appeals to emotion' despite all the evidence to the contrary proving you wrong but you expect it to be taken as reality because YOU SAY SO.
> 
> You're as mad as the Mad Hatter, an unstable ranting puppet, and a waste of time....
> 
> Merry Christmas, snowflake.
Click to expand...

happy holidays.  

it literally and Constitutionally must be lawful to seek naturalization.


----------



## candycorn

Saw this on my twitter feed:




 

I find the first stat dubious; how do you know how many crossed?  While the 630K is probably rounded up or down to the nearest thousand, why not just post the actual number unless it actually was not rounded….

Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.  

Necessity is the mother of invention.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General.
> 
> 
> 
> So you’ve just defeated yourself. The “declared *general*” power of the “welfare clause” clearly grants the federal government unlimited power to wage a war on terror, drugs, and crime.
> 
> You lose. As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says welfare not warfare.
Click to expand...

It is in the “welfare” of U.S. citizens to wage “warfare” on drugs, terrorism, and crime. You’ve defeated yourself with your ignorance (as _always_).


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.


No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).

You know the wall will work. We know you know the wall will work. You want to know how we know that you know? Because you’re terrified of the wall being built. If it wouldn’t work, you wouldn’t give a shit if it was built.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> there is no express wall building power.


There is also no “express power” for social security, welfare, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, any other of the thousands of unconstitutional shit you leverage to mooch off of the American people.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worthless if we need walls.


Our alleged “War on Poverty” is worthless if we need Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, government housing, and more.

You just defeated your own ignorant position for the fifty-seventh time.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We subscribe to Capitalism.  We should have no illegal problem under capitalism with our commerce clause.


Capitalism is an economic system. Illegal aliens are a political issue that cannot be handled via economic systems (since it is a *legal* matter). I’ve explained this to you many time.

Only the ignorant left is confused between economic systems and political systems. You’re a shining example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is expressly declared General.
> 
> 
> 
> So you’ve just defeated yourself. The “declared *general*” power of the “welfare clause” clearly grants the federal government unlimited power to wage a war on terror, drugs, and crime.
> 
> You lose. As always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says welfare not warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is in the “welfare” of U.S. citizens to wage “warfare” on drugs, terrorism, and crime. You’ve defeated yourself with your ignorance (as _always_).
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy where words don't matter?  Our welfare clause is General, we don't have a general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express wall building power.
> 
> 
> 
> There is also no “express power” for social security, welfare, SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, any other of the thousands of unconstitutional shit you leverage to mooch off of the American people.
Click to expand...

Providing for the general welfare is Express not Implied.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worthless if we need walls.
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged “War on Poverty” is worthless if we need Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, government housing, and more.
> 
> You just defeated your own ignorant position for the fifty-seventh time.
Click to expand...

those are fronts on our war on poverty.  the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless (but are willing to Talk anyway), like usual.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We subscribe to Capitalism.  We should have no illegal problem under capitalism with our commerce clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system. Illegal aliens are a political issue that cannot be handled via economic systems (since it is a *legal* matter). I’ve explained this to you many time.
> 
> Only the ignorant left is confused between economic systems and political systems. You’re a shining example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_.
Click to expand...

only national socialists have social problems.  national capitalists insist on generating revenue from public policies.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is general not common.


Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding! And you just contradicted yourself yet _again_. 

In post #2020, you attempted to make the argument that the federal government has no right to build a wall because there is no “*express* wall building power”.


danielpalos said:


> there is no *express* wall building power.


But now in post #2031 you state that socialism is ok because the welfare clause is “general”.


danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is *general* not common.


Wait...you said a power must be “express” in the U.S. Constitution. That means your weak and pathetic claims that the federal government has unlimited power under the very “general” welfare clause is null and void.

Your words.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worthless if we need walls.
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged “War on Poverty” is worthless if we need Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, government housing, and more.
> 
> You just defeated your own ignorant position for the fifty-seventh time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those are fronts on our war on poverty.
Click to expand...

And the wall would be our “*front*” on the wars on crime, drugs, and terror!!!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we have a commerce clause; why are we losing money on border policy.


1. Because you unconstitutional left-wing parasites refuse to uphold the U.S. Constitution - including the “commerce clause”.

2. Because enforcement of laws is *not* a commerce issue.

3. Because enforcement of laws is *not* a commerce issue.

Why are you so ignorant?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *capitalists* insist on generating revenue from *public* *policies*.


If it’s driven/controlled by “public policy” then it is *not* “capitalism”. That is socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is general not common.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding! And you just contradicted yourself yet _again_.
> 
> In post #2020, you attempted to make the argument that the federal government has no right to build a wall because there is no “*express* wall building power”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no *express* wall building power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now in post #2031 you state that socialism is ok because the welfare clause is “general”.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our welfare clause is *general* not common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...you said a power must be “express” in the U.S. Constitution. That means your weak and pathetic claims that the federal government has unlimited power under the very “general” welfare clause is null and void.
> 
> Your words.
Click to expand...

because This is the express power not That:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worthless if we need walls.
> 
> 
> 
> Our alleged “War on Poverty” is worthless if we need Social Security, welfare, SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare, government housing, and more.
> 
> You just defeated your own ignorant position for the fifty-seventh time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those are fronts on our war on poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the wall would be our “*front*” on the wars on crime, drugs, and terror!!!
Click to expand...

the common offense was a waste of money so now you want to waste even more money, allegedly, on the common defense?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have a commerce clause; why are we losing money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because you unconstitutional left-wing parasites refuse to uphold the U.S. Constitution - including the “commerce clause”.
> 
> 2. Because enforcement of laws is *not* a commerce issue.
> 
> 3. Because enforcement of laws is *not* a commerce issue.
> 
> Why are you so ignorant?
Click to expand...

Our Commerce Clause is a law that has to be enforced wherever it fits.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *capitalists* insist on generating revenue from *public* *policies*.
> 
> 
> 
> If it’s driven/controlled by “public policy” then it is *not* “capitalism”. That is socialism.
Click to expand...

losing money on public policy is socialism.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
Click to expand...

 

People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.  

The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.  

As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
Click to expand...

Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
Click to expand...


Why hasn’t what worked?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
Click to expand...

Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
Click to expand...


There are no muslims in Israel?


----------



## WEATHER53

The physical effectiveness of the wall may be limited but it sends a powerful message that we are serious and it’s not freebie entry  for all with caravans and like kind sappy shit.  This will put a serious dent in the number of those trying to sneak in due to liberal emotive panderings and offerings.


----------



## WEATHER53

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
Click to expand...

They need to go to Ellis Island for the aquatic trespassing.
Where’s that ding dong that kept saying “upgrading Ellis would solve the problem”???


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> The physical effectiveness of the wall may be limited but it sends a powerful message that we are serious and it’s not freebie entry  for all with caravans and like kind sappy shit.  This will put a serious dent in the number of those trying to sneak in due to liberal emotive panderings and offerings.


there is no Express wall building power, right wingers.  why be frivolous about being Constitutional.


----------



## WEATHER53

danielpalos said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physical effectiveness of the wall may be limited but it sends a powerful message that we are serious and it’s not freebie entry  for all with caravans and like kind sappy shit.  This will put a serious dent in the number of those trying to sneak in due to liberal emotive panderings and offerings.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no Express wall building power, right wingers.  why be frivolous about being Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Just silky to maintain that there has to be delineated wall building powers.
Government Is responsible for general welfare of it’s Citizens and does not have obligation toward those who will generally be on welfare as illegals


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no muslims in Israel?
Click to expand...

There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

WEATHER53 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The physical effectiveness of the wall may be limited but it sends a powerful message that we are serious and it’s not freebie entry  for all with caravans and like kind sappy shit.  This will put a serious dent in the number of those trying to sneak in due to liberal emotive panderings and offerings.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no Express wall building power, right wingers.  why be frivolous about being Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just silky to maintain that there has to be delineated wall building powers.
> Government Is responsible for general welfare of it’s Citizens and does not have obligation toward those who will generally be on welfare as illegals
Click to expand...

express powers must be faithfully executed before any implied powers.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible. Like if you lost your job delivering Pepsi, you’d still need to eat your usual dinner of cheetos and bean dip.  So you will find another job delivering Papa John’s pizza or something that is probably not as challenging as that would be for you to get your cheetos and bean dip.
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> 
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no muslims in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
Click to expand...


You’re sure?  How?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why hasn't that worked in Austria or Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no muslims in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
Click to expand...


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why hasn’t what worked?
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no muslims in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​




Can you post how much they add to our countries GDP.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why haven't the muzzie savages been able to cross the border by hiring smugglers or using a ferry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no muslims in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
Click to expand...


What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?

Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?


----------



## bripat9643

otto105 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post how much they add to our countries GDP.
Click to expand...

You post it, asshole.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the common offense was a waste of money so now you want to waste even more money, allegedly, on the common defense?


Snowflake, your beloved "War on Poverty" was a monumental waste of money. Many (many) trillions of dollars and poverty has drastically increased (both in total and in percentage). But you love it because you live to be a parasite, mooching off of others.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our Commerce Clause is a law that has to be enforced wherever it fits.


And it doesn't fit here at all. But you know what does? Our immigration laws. And they must be *enforced*. Every time. Without fail.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.


Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"? If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?

Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no muslims in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
Click to expand...


I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.


----------



## LeftofLeft

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here



“We the taxpayer” make more money off the illegal or “We the private employer”?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible.


Well there is some fine libtard "logic" for advocating for people to break the law. Hey CC, men have to work very hard to get women into bed. I guess we should all just advocate to allow men to rape women, uh? Yeah, I'm suuuuure you would support that, uh? Funny how you don't apply your "logic" consistently. But, typical of your side of the aisle. That's why you people are known for being bat-shit-crazy.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?


That is _hilarious_ coming from the progressive who has been adamant that outlawing firearms will solve all gun-related crimes and problems. 

Once again we see you are unable to apply your libtard "logic" consistently.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, it highlights how ineffective the wall will be.  Especially when you consider that if you throw up a wall, those determined to cross our border will just find other means of doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> No. They won’t. At all. Any nitwit can _walk_. Very few people in the world have the resources to “tunnel” under the wall. Very few people have the resources to fly in on illegal flights successfully. Very few people have the boats to come in through the costs (which is heavily guarded by the Coast Guard anyway).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly sweetie. And what is by far and away the easiest way to get into the U.S.? To simply walk across. You just made the greatest case yet for the wall. It is exponentially harder to tunnel into the U.S., to swim into the U.S., or to be smuggled into the U.S. via flight.

Thank you CC!!!!


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"?
Click to expand...

Who are you quoting?


P@triot said:


> If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?


Wow; thats a simplistic and not surprisingly stupid assessment.



P@triot said:


> Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.



Yeah, I understand that when you read something truthful, it messes with your Trump DNA.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is some fine libtard "logic" for advocating for people to break the law. Hey CC, men have to work very hard to get women into bed. I guess we should all just advocate to allow men to rape women, uh? Yeah, I'm suuuuure you would support that, uh? Funny how you don't apply your "logic" consistently. But, typical of your side of the aisle. That's why you people are known for being bat-shit-crazy.
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> 
> 
> That is _hilarious_ coming from the progressive who has been adamant that outlawing firearms will solve all gun-related crimes and problems.
> 
> Once again we see you are unable to apply your libtard "logic" consistently.
Click to expand...


Not sure what any of that was supposed to mean.  Don't really care much to be honest with you.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.
Click to expand...

Excel isn't the only way to make a chart, you fucking moron.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been zero border crossings since 2017, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.
Click to expand...

Come on CC, time to act like a big girl. Bri just bent you over with facts. Take it like a big girl. Don't come back with absurd nonsense like "I don't have time to explain Excel to you" when the chart clearly illustrates you were 100% wrong (as usual).


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is some fine libtard "logic" for advocating for people to break the law. Hey CC, men have to work very hard to get women into bed. I guess we should all just advocate to allow men to rape women, uh? Yeah, I'm suuuuure you would support that, uh? Funny how you don't apply your "logic" consistently. But, typical of your side of the aisle. That's why you people are known for being bat-shit-crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is _hilarious_ coming from the progressive who has been adamant that outlawing firearms will solve all gun-related crimes and problems.
> 
> Once again we see you are unable to apply your libtard "logic" consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what any of that was supposed to mean.  Don't really care much to be honest with you.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that's what the left always says when it is proved that they have an irrational position that they are incapable of applying consistently.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excel isn't the only way to make a chart, you fucking moron.
Click to expand...


Well, you could just make up the numbers like  tRump does I suppose.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re sure?  How?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on CC, time to act like a big girl. Bri just bent you over with facts. Take it like a big girl. Don't come back with absurd nonsense like "I don't have time to explain Excel to you" when the chart clearly illustrates you were 100% wrong (as usual).
Click to expand...


The chart reads zero.  That's true.
If you believe that no illegal border crossings took place...well, your IQ reads near zero as well.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People do what is necessary and they usually do it in the easiest way possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is some fine libtard "logic" for advocating for people to break the law. Hey CC, men have to work very hard to get women into bed. I guess we should all just advocate to allow men to rape women, uh? Yeah, I'm suuuuure you would support that, uh? Funny how you don't apply your "logic" consistently. But, typical of your side of the aisle. That's why you people are known for being bat-shit-crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the Coast Guard…how successful have they been in interdicting the cocaine from Colombia?  I’m sure there is no coke on the streets…right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is _hilarious_ coming from the progressive who has been adamant that outlawing firearms will solve all gun-related crimes and problems.
> 
> Once again we see you are unable to apply your libtard "logic" consistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what any of that was supposed to mean.  Don't really care much to be honest with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...that's what the left always says when it is proved that they have an irrational position that they are incapable of applying consistently.
Click to expand...


ok


----------



## otto105

bripat9643 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post how much they add to our countries GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post it, asshole.
Click to expand...



You seem to have all the numbers, but why exclude the GDP one?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on CC, time to act like a big girl. Bri just bent you over with facts. Take it like a big girl. Don't come back with absurd nonsense like "I don't have time to explain Excel to you" when the chart clearly illustrates you were 100% wrong (as usual).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chart reads zero.  That's true.
> If you believe that no illegal border crossings took place...well, your IQ reads near zero as well.
Click to expand...

Prove they did, asshole.


----------



## candycorn

bripat9643 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the crossings are illegal; they probably aren't showing up on the spreadsheet.  Just an FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What fucking "spreadsheet" are you talking about?  Look at the title of the chart:  It says "*Illegal Border Crossings *Into Israel."  What part of *"Illegal Border Crossings" *didn't you understand?  How could the numbers be in the chart if the "didn't show up on the spread sheet?"  What the fuck does that even mean?
> 
> Is it possible to describe with mere words how impossibly stupid you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't have time to explain Excel to you but charts are based on data in spreadsheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on CC, time to act like a big girl. Bri just bent you over with facts. Take it like a big girl. Don't come back with absurd nonsense like "I don't have time to explain Excel to you" when the chart clearly illustrates you were 100% wrong (as usual).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The chart reads zero.  That's true.
> If you believe that no illegal border crossings took place...well, your IQ reads near zero as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove they did, asshole.
Click to expand...


Prove they didn't.  Your spreadsheet doesn't mean crap.  What it does mean is that they didn't catch anyone entering illegally.  PS: Most of the illegal aliens we have in our nation entered legally too fuck face...they became illegal when they over-stayed their visas.  So it REALLY doesn't mean shit.  If you knew anything about what you're trying desperately to discuss, you'd know that.


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you quoting?
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow; thats a simplistic and not surprisingly stupid assessment.
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I understand that when you read something truthful, it messes with your Trump DNA.
Click to expand...

So you’re strategy now - when you don’t have an answer to simple questions that expose your absurd views - is to pretend like you don’t understand? _Really_?


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you quoting?
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow; thats a simplistic and not surprisingly stupid assessment.
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I understand that when you read something truthful, it messes with your Trump DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re strategy now - when you don’t have an answer to simple questions that expose your absurd views - is to pretend like you don’t understand? _Really_?
Click to expand...


You're the one who thinks Trump's 5 year audit is still going on....you're the one with absurd views.


----------



## froggy

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


If Democrats had their way they would have ever illegal in America given citizenship just so they could get the votes. We need to ban democrats


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you quoting?
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow; thats a simplistic and not surprisingly stupid assessment.
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I understand that when you read something truthful, it messes with your Trump DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re strategy now - when you don’t have an answer to simple questions that expose your absurd views - is to pretend like you don’t understand? _Really_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who thinks Trump's 5 year audit is still going on....you're the one with absurd views.
Click to expand...

I never said that. I openly admit I have no idea (that’s what mature adults do). I asked you to provide some facts and you couldn’t do it. Kind of like this thread.


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you quoting?
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow; thats a simplistic and not surprisingly stupid assessment.
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I understand that when you read something truthful, it messes with your Trump DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re strategy now - when you don’t have an answer to simple questions that expose your absurd views - is to pretend like you don’t understand? _Really_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who thinks Trump's 5 year audit is still going on....you're the one with absurd views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. I openly admit I have no idea (that’s what mature adults do). I asked you to provide some facts and you couldn’t do it. Kind of like this thread.
Click to expand...


Mature adults also know when they are being lied to...few if any audits of a person has taken 5 years.  But since your master has told you that it has; you have abandoned common sense (if you ever had any) and have swallowed what he has given you.  You make a nice pet.


----------



## froggy

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people crossing the border, if they think its necessary to come across will simply find another way; paying smugglers to ferry them across by truck or boat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...they have money? I thought you said they were coming here because they were "dead broke" and "wanted a better life"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you quoting?
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they have money, life must be good in Mexico. Why are they invading my nation? And, if they have money, why aren't they immigrating *legally*?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow; thats a simplistic and not surprisingly stupid assessment.
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. You fucked up big with that desperate reach, CC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I understand that when you read something truthful, it messes with your Trump DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you’re strategy now - when you don’t have an answer to simple questions that expose your absurd views - is to pretend like you don’t understand? _Really_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who thinks Trump's 5 year audit is still going on....you're the one with absurd views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that. I openly admit I have no idea (that’s what mature adults do). I asked you to provide some facts and you couldn’t do it. Kind of like this thread.
Click to expand...

That's why when you catch an illegal in America breaking the law Coming to America illegally is breaking the law you give them an offense to show others it will not be to their best advantage to sneak into America


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> Mature adults also know when they are being lied to...few if any audits of a person has taken 5 years.  But *since* *your* *master* *has* *told* *you* *that* *it* *has*; you have abandoned common sense (if you ever had any) and have swallowed what he has given you.  You make a nice pet.


Sweetie...I’ve *never* seen a _single_ comment from *President* *Trump* stating that his audit has taken 5 years. So once again I’m going to ask you to provide proof of your claim. And once again, you won’t. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

And if by some chance you can provide it (and we both know you won’t), I want to reiterate that I have *never* seen that to this point. I can’t “believe” something I’ve never seen. You are suffering from the worst case of Trump Derangement Syndrome any of us have ever seen. Is there someone we can call on your behalf to help get you the treatment you need?


----------



## P@triot

candycorn said:


> But since your master has told you that it has; you have abandoned common sense (if you ever had any) and have swallowed what he has given you.


Are you ready for this bombshell? I *didn’t* even vote for *President* *Trump*. Swear to God.

#NotMyMaster


----------



## candycorn

P@triot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mature adults also know when they are being lied to...few if any audits of a person has taken 5 years.  But *since* *your* *master* *has* *told* *you* *that* *it* *has*; you have abandoned common sense (if you ever had any) and have swallowed what he has given you.  You make a nice pet.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie...I’ve *never* seen a _single_ comment from *President* *Trump* stating that his audit has taken 5 years. So once again I’m going to ask you to provide proof of your claim. And once again, you won’t. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
> 
> And if by some chance you can provide it (and we both know you won’t), I want to reiterate that I have *never* seen that to this point. I can’t “believe” something I’ve never seen. You are suffering from the worst case of Trump Derangement Syndrome any of us have ever seen. Is there someone we can call on your behalf to help get you the treatment you need?
Click to expand...


Well, he said he would release his tax returns (from 2015) when the audit ends.  They haven't been released.  So that either means this fairy tale audit is still going on or Trump is a liar.  

Which do you think it is using your "maturity"?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the common offense was a waste of money so now you want to waste even more money, allegedly, on the common defense?
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake, your beloved "War on Poverty" was a monumental waste of money. Many (many) trillions of dollars and poverty has drastically increased (both in total and in percentage). But you love it because you live to be a parasite, mooching off of others.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy?  we have the Richest poor in the world. 

Your alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Worthless if we still need Walls.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Commerce Clause is a law that has to be enforced wherever it fits.
> 
> 
> 
> And it doesn't fit here at all. But you know what does? Our immigration laws. And they must be *enforced*. Every time. Without fail.
Click to expand...

lol.  This is an Express power:  

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,


----------



## Lesh

P@triot said:


> Are you ready for this bombshell? I *didn’t* even vote for *President* *Trump*. Swear to God.
> 
> #NotMyMaste



Well he is now


----------



## Lesh

And according to the (not so liberal) Cato Institute...the "cost" of illegal immigration is between 3 and 16 billion


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> And according to the (not so liberal) Cato Institute...the "cost" of illegal immigration is between 3 and 16 billion


Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy with a welfare clause General, a Commerce Clause, and an Uniform Rule of Naturalization.


----------



## froggy

Lesh said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ready for this bombshell? I *didn’t* even vote for *President* *Trump*. Swear to God.
> 
> #NotMyMaste
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you bragging or complaining
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesh

Didn't Republicans pass a trillion dollar budget that didn't include a border wall?

Why is this an issue now?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we have the Richest poor in the world.


Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding! Indisputable proof that we do not need any of these (unconstitutional) social programs. You greedy parasites are just fleecing the American people.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Commerce Clause is a law that has to be enforced wherever it fits.
> 
> 
> 
> And it doesn't fit here at all. But you know what does? Our immigration laws. And they must be *enforced*. Every time. Without fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  This is an Express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
Click to expand...

I know you're a junior high dropout, but seriously snowflake, "LOL" is *not* an argument. You've already humiliated yourself. You've simultaneously made the adamant argument that the federal government has unlimited power due to the "general welfare" clause while also claiming that the federal government cannot enforce immigration, narcotics, or crime because they lack "express" powers.

How do you keep showing up here? I would be so ashamed if I were caught contradicting myself to that degree. Furthermore, the "express power" that you keep pointing out ("to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization") is exactly what the federal government did. Now, those laws are being violated. They have every right to enforce them. Only and idiot and a jack-ass would argue otherwise.


----------



## P@triot

After decades of spineless politicians, it is so nice to see *President Trump* providing *real* leadership...

Trump Says Government Shutdown Will Continue Until There's a Wall


----------



## Lesh

Lesh said:


> Didn't Republicans pass a trillion dollar budget that didn't include a border wall?
> 
> Why is this an issue now?


Again..I ask


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have the Richest poor in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding! Indisputable proof that we do not need any of these (unconstitutional) social programs. You greedy parasites are just fleecing the American people.
Click to expand...

We have a First World economy.  We have to have the richest poor in the world.  Only the right wing, never gets it.

We have a general welfare clause not an unconstitutional general warfare clause.  You greedy parasites are just fleecing the American people.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Commerce Clause is a law that has to be enforced wherever it fits.
> 
> 
> 
> And it doesn't fit here at all. But you know what does? Our immigration laws. And they must be *enforced*. Every time. Without fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  This is an Express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you're a junior high dropout, but seriously snowflake, "LOL" is *not* an argument. You've already humiliated yourself. You've simultaneously made the adamant argument that the federal government has unlimited power due to the "general welfare" clause while also claiming that the federal government cannot enforce immigration, narcotics, or crime because they lack "express" powers.
> 
> How do you keep showing up here? I would be so ashamed if I were caught contradicting myself to that degree. Furthermore, the "express power" that you keep pointing out ("to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization") is exactly what the federal government did. Now, those laws are being violated. They have every right to enforce them. Only and idiot and a jack-ass would argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

You needed a valid argument to prove your point.  Naturalization is not immigration.


----------



## Mac1958

I'm still curious to know why Trump is willing to fall on the sword for just a fraction of the funds needed.

I realize he needs to keep his base happy, but is a fraction of what's needed really going to keep them happy?


----------



## Norman

Mac1958 said:


> I'm still curious to know why Trump is willing to fall on the sword for just a fraction of the funds needed.
> 
> I realize he needs to keep his base happy, but is a fraction of what's needed really going to keep them happy?



He has to start somewhere. If he can't get a fraction there won't be a wall. Fraction at a time he will build that wall.

It's hard to comprehend why the wall hasn't been built yet. Just imagine if it was built 40 years ago, none of this "division" bullcrap. Just one beautiful prosperous united American nation. Common sense, but we are dealing with idiots.


----------



## Mac1958

Norman said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still curious to know why Trump is willing to fall on the sword for just a fraction of the funds needed.  I realize he needs to keep his base happy, but is a fraction of what's needed really going to keep them happy?
> 
> 
> 
> He has to start somewhere. If he can't get a fraction there won't be a wall. Fraction at a time he will build that wall.  It's hard to comprehend why the wall hasn't been built yet. Just imagine if it was built 40 years ago, none of this "division" bullcrap. Just one beautiful prosperous united American nation. Common sense, but we are dealing with idiots.
Click to expand...

But he's had two years with total party control. 
.


----------



## Norman

Mac1958 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still curious to know why Trump is willing to fall on the sword for just a fraction of the funds needed.  I realize he needs to keep his base happy, but is a fraction of what's needed really going to keep them happy?
> 
> 
> 
> He has to start somewhere. If he can't get a fraction there won't be a wall. Fraction at a time he will build that wall.  It's hard to comprehend why the wall hasn't been built yet. Just imagine if it was built 40 years ago, none of this "division" bullcrap. Just one beautiful prosperous united American nation. Common sense, but we are dealing with idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he's had two years with total party control.
> .
Click to expand...


Control of the cuck party isn't going to do you much good. Thankfully now there are more people with testicular mass in the government.


----------



## Mac1958

Norman said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still curious to know why Trump is willing to fall on the sword for just a fraction of the funds needed.  I realize he needs to keep his base happy, but is a fraction of what's needed really going to keep them happy?
> 
> 
> 
> He has to start somewhere. If he can't get a fraction there won't be a wall. Fraction at a time he will build that wall.  It's hard to comprehend why the wall hasn't been built yet. Just imagine if it was built 40 years ago, none of this "division" bullcrap. Just one beautiful prosperous united American nation. Common sense, but we are dealing with idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he's had two years with total party control.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the cuck party isn't going to do you much good. Thankfully now there are more people with testicular mass in the government.
Click to expand...

Well, he's going to need a lot more people like that, because he doesn't have enough and the Dems are moving in on Wednesday.  I guess you can hope for a Trumpster Wave in 2020.
.


----------



## Norman

Mac1958 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still curious to know why Trump is willing to fall on the sword for just a fraction of the funds needed.  I realize he needs to keep his base happy, but is a fraction of what's needed really going to keep them happy?
> 
> 
> 
> He has to start somewhere. If he can't get a fraction there won't be a wall. Fraction at a time he will build that wall.  It's hard to comprehend why the wall hasn't been built yet. Just imagine if it was built 40 years ago, none of this "division" bullcrap. Just one beautiful prosperous united American nation. Common sense, but we are dealing with idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he's had two years with total party control.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Control of the cuck party isn't going to do you much good. Thankfully now there are more people with testicular mass in the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, he's going to need a lot more people like that, because he doesn't have enough and the Dems are moving in on Wednesday.  I guess you can hope for a Trumpster Wave in 2020.
> .
Click to expand...


No wall no nation.

From that point on it will be a preparation for the civil war. Although, I suppose many are already preparing.


----------



## Lesh

No wall no nation?

What a crock. We never had a wall and we HAVE a nation.

This is not a crisis in the real world. It's a crisis in your mind.

In fact illegal immigration has been declining for years.

And hey...Trump not only EMPLOYS illegals...his people get them fake documents


----------



## Norman

Lesh said:


> No wall no nation?
> 
> What a crock. We never had a wall and we HAVE a nation.
> 
> This is not a crisis in the real world. It's a crisis in your mind.
> 
> In fact illegal immigration has been declining for years.
> 
> And hey...Trump not only EMPLOYS illegals...his people get them fake documents



Yeah of course, until bunch of people crossed over the border and are soon destined to become the majority. It was a brilliant idea not having a wall wasn't it?

Build that wall now, and maybe we can be a nation in the future too.


----------



## Lesh

Soon to be a majority?

There are 11 million illegals and that number is declining...in a nation of over 300 million.

WTF are you talking about?


----------



## deanrd

Imagine, it only cost 36 bucks (for a ladder) to defeat a wall costing 21 billion.


----------



## Norman

Lesh said:


> Soon to be a majority?
> 
> There are 11 million illegals and that number is declining...in a nation of over 300 million.
> 
> WTF are you talking about?



I wonder where you got that it's only the illegals that are anti-American. That is not the case... You may read this very forum to find out as much.


----------



## Lesh

Norman said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soon to be a majority?
> 
> There are 11 million illegals and that number is declining...in a nation of over 300 million.
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder where you got that it's only the illegals that are anti-American. That is not the case... You may read this very forum to find out as much.
Click to expand...

Wait...so you're "concerned" about something OTHER than illegals coming across the southern border?

Then why all the concern about a wall?

It strikes me that something bigger is going on here and that "the wall" is really only a very expensive symbol.


----------



## Norman

Lesh said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soon to be a majority?
> 
> There are 11 million illegals and that number is declining...in a nation of over 300 million.
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder where you got that it's only the illegals that are anti-American. That is not the case... You may read this very forum to find out as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait...so you're "concerned" about something OTHER than illegals coming across the southern border?
> 
> Then why all the concern about a wall?
> 
> It strikes me that something bigger is going on here and that "the wall" is really only a very expensive symbol.
Click to expand...


The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.


----------



## danielpalos

Norman said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wall no nation?
> 
> What a crock. We never had a wall and we HAVE a nation.
> 
> This is not a crisis in the real world. It's a crisis in your mind.
> 
> In fact illegal immigration has been declining for years.
> 
> And hey...Trump not only EMPLOYS illegals...his people get them fake documents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah of course, until bunch of people crossed over the border and are soon destined to become the majority. It was a brilliant idea not having a wall wasn't it?
> 
> Build that wall now, and maybe we can be a nation in the future too.
Click to expand...

there is no express wall building power.  Our Founding Fathers must have been for Spartanism.


----------



## Norman

danielpalos said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wall no nation?
> 
> What a crock. We never had a wall and we HAVE a nation.
> 
> This is not a crisis in the real world. It's a crisis in your mind.
> 
> In fact illegal immigration has been declining for years.
> 
> And hey...Trump not only EMPLOYS illegals...his people get them fake documents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah of course, until bunch of people crossed over the border and are soon destined to become the majority. It was a brilliant idea not having a wall wasn't it?
> 
> Build that wall now, and maybe we can be a nation in the future too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building power.  Our Founding Fathers must have been for Spartanism.
Click to expand...


The government absolutely has the power to build that wall and defend the nation from any external threats.


----------



## danielpalos

Norman said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> No wall no nation?
> 
> What a crock. We never had a wall and we HAVE a nation.
> 
> This is not a crisis in the real world. It's a crisis in your mind.
> 
> In fact illegal immigration has been declining for years.
> 
> And hey...Trump not only EMPLOYS illegals...his people get them fake documents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah of course, until bunch of people crossed over the border and are soon destined to become the majority. It was a brilliant idea not having a wall wasn't it?
> 
> Build that wall now, and maybe we can be a nation in the future too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express wall building power.  Our Founding Fathers must have been for Spartanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government absolutely has the power to build that wall and defend the nation from any external threats.
Click to expand...

we have a refugee problem not a common defense problem.  there is no express wall building power.  we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## Lesh

Norman said:


> The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.



That's exactly what I said.

The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.


----------



## Norman

Lesh said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.
Click to expand...


No it's not, walls work. It's a start...


----------



## danielpalos

Norman said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, walls work. It's a start...
Click to expand...

Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.


----------



## Norman

danielpalos said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, walls work. It's a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
Click to expand...


The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.


----------



## danielpalos

Norman said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, walls work. It's a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
Click to expand...

lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall is the obvious starting point. If the nation doesn't even build that it's going to be business as usual, which means the end of the nation in a decade or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not, walls work. It's a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.
Click to expand...



We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I said.
> 
> The fucking wall is nothing but a very expensive symbol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, walls work. It's a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.
Click to expand...

just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.

Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, walls work. It's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.
Click to expand...




Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.


We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.


----------



## Lesh

Norman said:


> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.



How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that

A. No one seriously wants fixed

B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?

And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
Click to expand...



Americans want this problem fixed.


----------



## Norman

Lesh said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
Click to expand...


A: No one except all Americans?

B: By fixing the problem.


----------



## Lesh

"All Americans" want to waste tens of billions on a wall that even Trump supporters admit is nothing but a symbol?

You need to do a little research

And I'll believe that we're serious about "fixing" this when really HEAVY fines are levied on employers who hire illegals and even HEAVIER fines levied on employers who help illegals get fake documents...ya know...like at Trump's Bedminster Country Club and Mar a Lago


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> "All Americans" want to waste tens of billions on a wall that even Trump supporters admit is nothing but a symbol?
> 
> You need to do a little research





If Americans wanted unlimited immigration, the democratic process is available for them to change the immigration policy to that.


But even your dem party won't actually do that. They want to implement policy by breaking the law, not changing the law.


They are tyrants.


----------



## Lesh

Straw man

Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".

I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Straw man
> 
> Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".
> 
> I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...





You are attacking the very idea of controlling the border. The implication of a  border that anyone can just walk across is obvious.


It is not credible that you are too dim to see that.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walls won't fix lousy public policy.  We allege to be for Capitalism.  We should be making money not losing money on border policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.
Click to expand...

there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies. 

national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
Click to expand...



As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.


Our laws are being massively violated.


That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
Click to expand...



A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.


D'uh.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man
> 
> Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".
> 
> I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are attacking the very idea of controlling the border. The implication of a  border that anyone can just walk across is obvious.
> 
> 
> It is not credible that you are too dim to see that.
Click to expand...

There is no such implication.

There IS however the jobs magnet...symbolized by the President hiring illegals and actually helping them get fake docs


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man
> 
> Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".
> 
> I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are attacking the very idea of controlling the border. The implication of a  border that anyone can just walk across is obvious.
> 
> 
> It is not credible that you are too dim to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such implication.
> 
> There IS however the jobs magnet...symbolized by the President hiring illegals and actually helping them get fake docs
Click to expand...



If any attempt to control the border, is attacked, the implication is that you are against controlling the border.


D'uh.


If the border is not controlled, than anyone can walk across it. That is an open border, and unlimited immigration.


Double D'uh.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man
> 
> Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".
> 
> I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are attacking the very idea of controlling the border. The implication of a  border that anyone can just walk across is obvious.
> 
> 
> It is not credible that you are too dim to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such implication.
> 
> There IS however the jobs magnet...symbolized by the President hiring illegals and actually helping them get fake docs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If any attempt to control the border, is attacked, the implication is that you are against controlling the border.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> If the border is not controlled, than anyone can walk across it. That is an open border, and unlimited immigration.
> 
> 
> Double D'uh.
Click to expand...

Hey dumbass...the clean CR has 1.6 billion in it for border security

And newsflash...if we ever get to a place where you can not find work without real documents...very few would come across that border.

Of course when our President not only hires illegals but helps them get fake docs...well that place is a long way off


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man
> 
> Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".
> 
> I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are attacking the very idea of controlling the border. The implication of a  border that anyone can just walk across is obvious.
> 
> 
> It is not credible that you are too dim to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such implication.
> 
> There IS however the jobs magnet...symbolized by the President hiring illegals and actually helping them get fake docs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If any attempt to control the border, is attacked, the implication is that you are against controlling the border.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> If the border is not controlled, than anyone can walk across it. That is an open border, and unlimited immigration.
> 
> 
> Double D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumbass...the clean CR has 1.6 billion in it for border security
Click to expand...




You libs attack anyone and anything that is about border security. 


Your actions show what your true goals are.


----------



## bripat9643

deanrd said:


> Imagine, it only cost 36 bucks (for a ladder) to defeat a wall costing 21 billion.


A 30 foot ladder costs more like $500, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man
> 
> Very few if any want "unlimited immigration".
> 
> I wonder why none of you address the fact that your Orange Hero not only knowingly hires illegals but actually has his own people getting them fake docs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are attacking the very idea of controlling the border. The implication of a  border that anyone can just walk across is obvious.
> 
> 
> It is not credible that you are too dim to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such implication.
> 
> There IS however the jobs magnet...symbolized by the President hiring illegals and actually helping them get fake docs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If any attempt to control the border, is attacked, the implication is that you are against controlling the border.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> If the border is not controlled, than anyone can walk across it. That is an open border, and unlimited immigration.
> 
> 
> Double D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dumbass...the clean CR has 1.6 billion in it for border security
> 
> And newsflash...if we ever get to a place where you can not find work without real documents...very few would come across that border.
> 
> Of course when our President not only hires illegals but helps them get fake docs...well that place is a long way off
Click to expand...

As long as Dims are in Congress that is never going to happen.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  We don't have an immigration problem we have a money losing naturalization problem and allege to be Capitalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
Click to expand...

the express power is naturalization, not immigration. 

merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
Click to expand...

there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
Click to expand...



That is the status quo you support.


I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wall fixes part of the illegal immigration problem and pays for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
Click to expand...




Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.


Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.


Only an enemy of the people would be against that.


You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
Click to expand...

Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.

Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?

Sure sounds like it.

The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
Click to expand...



The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.


Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> just right wing fantasy like usual?  there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution; we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Only Bad Capitalists lose money on public policies.  Good Capitalists make money on public policies and don't whine about taxes.  Only lousy right wing capital managers, do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
Click to expand...

lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a 50 billion dollar wall "fix" a "problem" that
> 
> A. No one seriously wants fixed
> 
> B. Costs between 3 and 16 billion?
> 
> And when Trump has his OWN people providing fake docs to illegal workers you KNOW that no one (who matters) wants it "fixed". In fact they USE illegal immigrants to pad their bottom line. You're being played....again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans want this problem fixed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution; unlike the _infidel_, _protestant_, and _renegade_ right wing.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
Click to expand...


A. So it's only the third world that bothers you? 

B.With half of illegals coming from OTHER than our southern border...apparently this "stampede" is happening all over the place...but that doesn't bother you


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do.  A wall solves nothing.  We should be making money on border policy not losing money on border policy.  We have a Commerce Clause and our Welfare Clause is General, not Common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
Click to expand...

lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your unsupported and off topic assertions are noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> We have an immigration problem. Your denial is utterly silly.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
Click to expand...



We don't want to naturalize them. 


We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. So it's only the third world that bothers you?
Click to expand...



No.



> B.With half of illegals coming from OTHER than our southern border...apparently this "stampede" is happening all over the place...but that doesn't bother you




The Wall addresses half the problem. That is worth doing. 

This is simply shit. Stop putting the effort in to confuse the issue and it will make sense to you immediately.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will help keep out unwanted outsiders.
> 
> 
> D'uh.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.
Click to expand...




I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.


You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy all things are possible. 

We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.


----------



## danielpalos

anybody can come to the US as a tourist.  

seeking asylum is a separate issue.

anyone coming in as a tourist should require at least ten years of residence before applying for naturalization.

Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> 
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy all things are possible.
> 
> We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.
Click to expand...




Nothing fantasy about the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy all things are possible.
> 
> We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fantasy about the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
Click to expand...

we know the right wing doesn't really care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.  

why should we take them seriously about less fortunate illegals.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy all things are possible.
> 
> We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fantasy about the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we know the right wing doesn't really care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> why should we take them seriously about less fortunate illegals.
Click to expand...




What you "know" is irrelevant to the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.


Deport them all. Build the Wall.


----------



## boedicca

And a wall will be even cheaper if Mexico builds one on their southern border.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...an_pit_stop_has_one_answer.html#ixzz5bCamZPzJ


----------



## bripat9643

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no immigration clause.  we have lousy naturalization policies.
> 
> national capitalists make money on border policy and national socialists don't care about losing money on border policy; Capitalism, what is that Sayeth national socialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

Left wingers love Mexicans so much that you have to wonder why they all don't move to Mexico


----------



## boedicca

bripat9643 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a Sovereign People we have the right to decide who we invite into our community.
> 
> 
> Our laws are being massively violated.
> 
> 
> That is an immigration problem and your denial is a vile lie.
> 
> 
> 
> the express power is naturalization, not immigration.
> 
> merely creating an underclass of "illegals" is not a capital solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is the status quo you support.
> 
> 
> I want to deport them all, and build the wall to stop them from coming back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Left wingers love Mexicans so much that you have to wonder why they all don't move to Mexico
Click to expand...



They love Venezuela even more, and yet inexplicably have not yet immigrated to that Socialist Paradise.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  there is no immigration clause.  it is an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in right wing fantasy all things are possible.
> 
> We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fantasy about the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we know the right wing doesn't really care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> why should we take them seriously about less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you "know" is irrelevant to the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> 
> Deport them all. Build the Wall.
Click to expand...

this is the law:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
_
why be illegal to our own laws but blame less fortunate illegals.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't want to naturalize them.
> 
> 
> We want them to go home. You should too. It is obvious that you are more loyal to your fellow Mexicans than to your supposedly fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> in right wing fantasy all things are possible.
> 
> We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fantasy about the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we know the right wing doesn't really care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> why should we take them seriously about less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you "know" is irrelevant to the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> 
> Deport them all. Build the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the law:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> why be illegal to our own laws but blame less fortunate illegals.
Click to expand...





Better to send them home. To the nations they are actually loyal to. Like with you and Mexico.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> in right wing fantasy all things are possible.
> 
> We have a Constitution and the establishment clause is Express not Implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing fantasy about the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we know the right wing doesn't really care about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> why should we take them seriously about less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you "know" is irrelevant to the fact that our democratically enacted laws are that these illegals should not be here.
> 
> 
> Deport them all. Build the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the law:  _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> _
> why be illegal to our own laws but blame less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better to send them home. To the nations they are actually loyal to. Like with you and Mexico.
Click to expand...

i don't need to take _infidels_, _protestants_, _renegades_, or _unconstitutionals_ seriously.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no wall building power.  the commerce clause must be our common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...



Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).

How's you bank account look?


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your meaningless babble is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and want enters a nation is the most basic function of good governance.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of the people would be against that.
> 
> 
> You should return to the nation you are actually loyal to.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).
> 
> How's you bank account look?
Click to expand...


Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.


And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.



Thanks for the brag.

So you're going to personally fund deportation of the 30 million people you claim are here?

What do you suppose that would cost?

You got a couple hundred billion in your account?


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the brag.
> 
> So you're going to personally fund deportation of the 30 million people you claim are here?
> 
> What do you suppose that would cost?
> 
> You got a couple hundred billion in your account?
Click to expand...



Your odd slant of trying to put this on me and just me personally  is a sure sign that you know that you cannot defend your position honestly.


It is amazing to me that you can, on one level, KNOW that you have to be dishonest to "defend" your position, and yet not be able to understand that that means that you are in the wrong.


Seriously.  What do you to to twist your mind like that? Play both sides of chess games since early childhood?


----------



## Lesh

Correll said:


> Your odd slant of trying to put this on me and just me personally is a sure sign that you know that you cannot defend your position honestly.




Well you claimed you would pay for it and then bragged about how much money you supposedly had. Poney up


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your odd slant of trying to put this on me and just me personally is a sure sign that you know that you cannot defend your position honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you claimed you would pay for it and then bragged about how much money you supposedly had. Poney up
Click to expand...




Your dishonesty has already been addressed. No need to parade it around more.


----------



## Lesh

What dishonesty are you lying about?


----------



## Correll

Lesh said:


> What dishonesty are you lying about?




Dumbass.


Your odd slant of trying to put this on me and just me personally is a sure sign that you know that you cannot defend your position honestly.


It is amazing to me that you can, on one level, KNOW that you have to be dishonest to "defend" your position, and yet not be able to understand that that means that you are in the wrong.


Seriously. What do you to to twist your mind like that? Play both sides of chess games since early childhood?


----------



## danielpalos

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy with a Commerce Clause.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy with a Commerce Clause.





Your gibberish is noted and dismissed.


Controlling who and what enters a community is the most basic function of good government.


Only an enemy of that community could oppose that.


YOu are an enemy of our community.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy with a Commerce Clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your gibberish is noted and dismissed.
> 
> 
> Controlling who and what enters a community is the most basic function of good government.
> 
> 
> Only an enemy of that community could oppose that.
> 
> 
> YOu are an enemy of our community.
Click to expand...

national capitalists make money on border policy.  national socialists lose money on border policy.

we don't have an Immigration clause it is expressly declared a Naturalization clause.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



Trump's about face and decision to shut down government by not signing the CR is all on Trump,  just to appease his ego.

Blaming the Democrats is absurd, and only the biddable and partisan hacks believe this to be true.  In fact no vote has been taken, and no one can predict how many members of The Congress would vote for the $5 billion black mail demand.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Correll said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mindlessly repeating your babble does nothing for you.
> 
> Are you saying that we should seall ALL our borders?
> 
> Sure sounds like it.
> 
> The wall is a SYMBOL. A very expensive inefficient symbol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).
> 
> How's you bank account look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
Click to expand...


How did you exceed your investment goals for 2018?  In one of my investment accounts, managed by professionals we lost $74 k (rounded down) between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2018 in a balanced account.

I think you are full of shit.  If you invested in bonds, large, mid and small cap stocks, foreign and domestic you could not have exceeded your goal - unless it was to lose money.


----------



## Correll

Wry Catcher said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Third World is not stampeding across all our borders.
> 
> 
> Walls work. If you lefties did not think the wall would not work, you would not be so afraid of it.
> 
> 
> 
> lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).
> 
> How's you bank account look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you exceed your investment goals for 2018?  In one of my investment accounts, managed by professionals we lost $74 k (rounded down) between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2018 in a balanced account.
> 
> I think you are full of shit.  If you invested in bonds, large, mid and small cap stocks, foreign and domestic you could not have exceeded your goal - unless it was to lose money.
Click to expand...



What I meant was, we came up with the amount of money we wanted to invest, and then some. Our goal was to invest a significant amount of money.



We are aware that the markets are down, though we have not yet done our end of the year review. 



You need to consider that your emotions, especially your hate of those that disagree with you, are really effecting your perceptions, and making you miss intended meanings, in favor of those that support your biases and prejudices.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Correll said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lousy right wing management has wars on crime, drugs, and terror they refuse to pay wartime tax rates for, and complain about their social results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).
> 
> How's you bank account look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you exceed your investment goals for 2018?  In one of my investment accounts, managed by professionals we lost $74 k (rounded down) between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2018 in a balanced account.
> 
> I think you are full of shit.  If you invested in bonds, large, mid and small cap stocks, foreign and domestic you could not have exceeded your goal - unless it was to lose money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant was, we came up with the amount of money we wanted to invest, and then some. Our goal was to invest a significant amount of money.
> 
> 
> 
> We are aware that the markets are down, though we have not yet done our end of the year review.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to consider that your emotions, especially your hate of those that disagree with you, are really effecting your perceptions, and making you miss intended meanings, in favor of those that support your biases and prejudices.
Click to expand...


Bullshit!  Your "intended" meaning?  You made a claim, definitively, and now claim you haven't done an and of year review.  Even with that one day thousand point + raise, all three major markets ended the year in the Red.

The only way to have ended the year in the black, would be Real Estate Holdings, and even then the value was much less in most communities in '18 then in the previous half dozen years.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express wall building power, right wingers.  Why complain about less fortunate illegals?


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> There is no express wall building power, right wingers.  Why complain about less fortunate illegals?


Why do you carry on with that meaningless nonsense?

Did you notice that no one is responding?


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power, right wingers.  Why complain about less fortunate illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you carry on with that meaningless nonsense?
> 
> Did you notice that no one is responding?
Click to expand...

Where is the express wall building power?  We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.


----------



## Correll

Wry Catcher said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm willing to pay to deport all the illegals and build the Wall.
> 
> 
> You should go home. YOu are not loyal to your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).
> 
> How's you bank account look?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you exceed your investment goals for 2018?  In one of my investment accounts, managed by professionals we lost $74 k (rounded down) between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2018 in a balanced account.
> 
> I think you are full of shit.  If you invested in bonds, large, mid and small cap stocks, foreign and domestic you could not have exceeded your goal - unless it was to lose money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant was, we came up with the amount of money we wanted to invest, and then some. Our goal was to invest a significant amount of money.
> 
> 
> 
> We are aware that the markets are down, though we have not yet done our end of the year review.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to consider that your emotions, especially your hate of those that disagree with you, are really effecting your perceptions, and making you miss intended meanings, in favor of those that support your biases and prejudices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Your "intended" meaning?  You made a claim, definitively, and now claim you haven't done an and of year review.  Even with that one day thousand point + raise, all three major markets ended the year in the Red.
> 
> The only way to have ended the year in the black, would be Real Estate Holdings, and even then the value was much less in most communities in '18 then in the previous half dozen years.
Click to expand...



Dude. Please try to listen to what I am saying here, now.


People talk. Miscommunication is normal. I used a term, perhaps incorrectly. You did not receive the information I meant to convey.


Completely normal. In that limited example, the "Fault" was mine.


Now though, I have clarified my communication and you are holding on to your initial misunderstanding, in order to "gotcha" me.


That is not how real people talk. 


Do you have Aspergers Syndrome? Or some similar diagnosis? Or are you just a hopeless partisan?


Either way, Dude. Try to improve.


Happy New Year.


----------



## danielpalos

We need Great Walls of America tax rates for our Great Walls, which should generate revenue from inception not centuries later.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Correll said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Pony up the ,money to deport 11 million people (or the 30 million you claim).
> 
> How's you bank account look?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you exceed your investment goals for 2018?  In one of my investment accounts, managed by professionals we lost $74 k (rounded down) between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2018 in a balanced account.
> 
> I think you are full of shit.  If you invested in bonds, large, mid and small cap stocks, foreign and domestic you could not have exceeded your goal - unless it was to lose money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant was, we came up with the amount of money we wanted to invest, and then some. Our goal was to invest a significant amount of money.
> 
> 
> 
> We are aware that the markets are down, though we have not yet done our end of the year review.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to consider that your emotions, especially your hate of those that disagree with you, are really effecting your perceptions, and making you miss intended meanings, in favor of those that support your biases and prejudices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Your "intended" meaning?  You made a claim, definitively, and now claim you haven't done an and of year review.  Even with that one day thousand point + raise, all three major markets ended the year in the Red.
> 
> The only way to have ended the year in the black, would be Real Estate Holdings, and even then the value was much less in most communities in '18 then in the previous half dozen years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Please try to listen to what I am saying here, now.
> 
> 
> People talk. Miscommunication is normal. I used a term, perhaps incorrectly. You did not receive the information I meant to convey.
> 
> 
> Completely normal. In that limited example, the "Fault" was mine.
> 
> aA
> 
> 
> Now though, I have clarified my communication and you are holding on to your initial misunderstanding, in order to "gotcha" me.
> 
> 
> That is not how real people talk.
> 
> 
> Do you have Aspergers Syndrome? Or some similar diagnosis? Or are you just a hopeless partisan?
> 
> 
> Either way, Dude. Try to improve.
> 
> 
> Happy New Year.
Click to expand...


I will accept your very weak Mea culpa.  Let us both hope there is less chaos and thus a stable economy in the new year.


----------



## Correll

Wry Catcher said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite good actually. We exceeded our investment goals for the year.
> 
> 
> And I'm happy to pay my share. It is exactly the type of joint sacrifice, joint gain that epitomizes the reason for taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you exceed your investment goals for 2018?  In one of my investment accounts, managed by professionals we lost $74 k (rounded down) between Jan. 2018 and Dec. 2018 in a balanced account.
> 
> I think you are full of shit.  If you invested in bonds, large, mid and small cap stocks, foreign and domestic you could not have exceeded your goal - unless it was to lose money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant was, we came up with the amount of money we wanted to invest, and then some. Our goal was to invest a significant amount of money.
> 
> 
> 
> We are aware that the markets are down, though we have not yet done our end of the year review.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to consider that your emotions, especially your hate of those that disagree with you, are really effecting your perceptions, and making you miss intended meanings, in favor of those that support your biases and prejudices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Your "intended" meaning?  You made a claim, definitively, and now claim you haven't done an and of year review.  Even with that one day thousand point + raise, all three major markets ended the year in the Red.
> 
> The only way to have ended the year in the black, would be Real Estate Holdings, and even then the value was much less in most communities in '18 then in the previous half dozen years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Please try to listen to what I am saying here, now.
> 
> 
> People talk. Miscommunication is normal. I used a term, perhaps incorrectly. You did not receive the information I meant to convey.
> 
> 
> Completely normal. In that limited example, the "Fault" was mine.
> 
> aA
> 
> 
> Now though, I have clarified my communication and you are holding on to your initial misunderstanding, in order to "gotcha" me.
> 
> 
> That is not how real people talk.
> 
> 
> Do you have Aspergers Syndrome? Or some similar diagnosis? Or are you just a hopeless partisan?
> 
> 
> Either way, Dude. Try to improve.
> 
> 
> Happy New Year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will accept your very weak Mea culpa.  Let us both hope there is less chaos and thus a stable economy in the new year.
Click to expand...




Do you remember me ever misunderstanding YOU?


----------



## basquebromance

not to sound like Dan Quayle, my friends, but we need to focus our mind on the future...by looking back.

walls have been around for 4,000 years. they worked then. they'll work now.


----------



## danielpalos

it won't solve the problem.  

and, we don't have an immigration clause, it is a naturalization clause.


----------



## P@triot

It’s funny - we are told by the Dumbocrats that walls don’t work, that walls are “immoral”, and that illegals should be welcomed under any circumstances. And yet, oddly, when illegals went to Nancy Pelosi’s residence, not only were there many walls, but Nancy immediately panicked, called 911, and demanded that law enforcement remove the very same illegal aliens that she states should be welcomed, fed, and sheltered by all of us!


> The controversial journalist even went to check if the Pelosis had locked their front door, since, according to a sarcastic Loomer, "only bigots lock their doors. Come on, you can't say everyone is welcome here and then lock your door," said Loomer, upon finding the doors locked. "You're killing us, Nancy! You're killing us!" Police officers were soon called to the property and asked for identification from the illegals and Loomer and company. "I was told IDs were racist," Loomer repeatedly tells the officers. "I'm so confused."


Typical do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Dumbocrat! As Andrew Wilkow always says, “socialism is for the people - not the socialist”.

WATCH: Laura Loomer Brings Illegal Immigrants To Nancy Pelosi's Home. Pelosi Has Police Remove Them.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it won't solve the problem.


Sure it will. You know it too. Which is exactly why you’re so against it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it won't solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will. You know it too. Which is exactly why you’re so against it.
Click to expand...

just a waste of money.  we should be generating revenue like good national capitalists.


----------



## basquebromance

Ann Coulter: Trump is the worst negotiator God ever created!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it won't solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will. You know it too. Which is exactly why you’re so against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a waste of money.  we should be generating revenue like good national capitalists.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is an economic system. We are discussing political and legal systems. Only the left doesn’t get it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it won't solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will. You know it too. Which is exactly why you’re so against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just a waste of money.  we should be generating revenue like good national capitalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism is an economic system. We are discussing political and legal systems. Only the left doesn’t get it.
Click to expand...

lol.  nice story, national socialists are good at telling stories.


----------



## P@triot

Indisputable proof that the left is *lying* (as _always_)...

‘They don’t even try’: Hungary’s new border fence called ‘spectacular success’


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> nice story, national socialists are good at telling stories.


No, you’re not, at all. You’re also not good at reading or writing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Indisputable proof that the left is *lying* (as _always_)...
> 
> ‘They don’t even try’: Hungary’s new border fence called ‘spectacular success’


We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.  A wall is Spending.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice story, national socialists are good at telling stories.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you’re not, at all. You’re also not good at reading or writing.
Click to expand...

i resort to fewer fallacies.


----------



## KissMy

The "Border Wall" can't even stop a extremely pregnant woman from climbing over just before her baby comes out. Reagan & Republicans rolled out the welcome mat for foreigners. Democrat Obama created negative illegal migration.

Flag saluting constitution waving & screaming Repubtards refuse to alter the US Constitution that draws them here! Trumptards controlled the White house, Senate, House, Governorships & Supreme Court, but REFUSED to alter the Constitution to End "Birthright Citizenship"!


----------



## danielpalos

KissMy said:


> The "Border Wall" can't even stop a extremely pregnant woman from climbing over just before her baby comes out. Reagan & Republicans rolled out the welcome mat for foreigners. Democrat Obama created negative illegal migration.
> 
> Flag saluting constitution waving & screaming Repubtards refuse to alter the US Constitution that draws them here! Trumptards controlled the White house, Senate, House, Governorships & Supreme Court, but REFUSED to alter the Constitution to End "Birthright Citizenship"!


We have no immigration clause, we an express establishment clause for naturalization, not right wing bigotry.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.


That is a completely nonsensical statement. It is literally like saying “we should have no crime with laws” or “we should have no poor with money circulating”. People in other nations who attempt to come here illegally don’t care about our “naturalization clause”. You’re so desperate for attention, you’ll just post any nonsense.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have no immigration clause, we an express establishment clause for naturalization, not right wing bigotry.


Good God...you are hands down the dumbest living human being alive today.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a completely nonsensical statement. It is literally like saying “we should have no crime with laws” or “we should have no poor with money circulating”. People in other nations who attempt to come here illegally don’t care about our “naturalization clause”. You’re so desperate for attention, you’ll just post any nonsense.
Click to expand...

we don't have an immigration clause.  a naturalization clause means people have to apply for citizenship if they are here.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> we don't have an immigration clause.  a naturalization clause means people have to apply for citizenship if they are here.


Good God...you are hands down the dumbest living human being alive today. Applying for citizenship is the textbook definition of “immigration”.


----------



## P@triot

One can always rely on left-wing actions to cost more while simultaneously culminating in worse results. We saw that with Obama and the Democrats when they “promised” their stimulus package would ensure that unemployment would never hit 8%. Instead, for almost a trillion dollars, unemployment skyrocketed to over 10%.

We see this sad reality once again with the border wall and subsequent government shutdown. For $5 billion we could have funded about 1/5 of the total wall. But instead, Democrats cost us $6 billion for absolutely *nothing*. Nothing. We have nothing to show for that $6 billion, when for $5 billion we could have had a substantial increase in border security.

Report: Standard & Poor's claims gov't shutdown will cost more than border wall


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we don't have an immigration clause.  a naturalization clause means people have to apply for citizenship if they are here.
> 
> 
> 
> Good God...you are hands down the dumbest living human being alive today. Applying for citizenship is the textbook definition of “immigration”.
> 
> View attachment 242355
Click to expand...

we have an express establishment clause for naturalization not immigration, every time we have to get serious.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> One can always rely on left-wing actions to cost more while simultaneously culminating in worse results. We saw that with Obama and the Democrats when they “promised” their stimulus package would ensure that unemployment would never hit 8%. Instead, for almost a trillion dollars, unemployment skyrocketed to over 10%.
> 
> We see this sad reality once again with the border wall and subsequent government shutdown. For $5 billion we could have funded about 1/5 of the total wall. But instead, Democrats cost us $6 billion for absolutely *nothing*. Nothing. We have nothing to show for that $6 billion, when for $5 billion we could have had a substantial increase in border security.
> 
> Report: Standard & Poor's claims gov't shutdown will cost more than border wall


There is no express wall building power.  Government should never be shut down over any Implied powers.


----------



## edward37

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can always rely on left-wing actions to cost more while simultaneously culminating in worse results. We saw that with Obama and the Democrats when they “promised” their stimulus package would ensure that unemployment would never hit 8%. Instead, for almost a trillion dollars, unemployment skyrocketed to over 10%.
> 
> We see this sad reality once again with the border wall and subsequent government shutdown. For $5 billion we could have funded about 1/5 of the total wall. But instead, Democrats cost us $6 billion for absolutely *nothing*. Nothing. We have nothing to show for that $6 billion, when for $5 billion we could have had a substantial increase in border security.
> 
> Report: Standard & Poor's claims gov't shutdown will cost more than border wall
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power.  Government should never be shut down over any Implied powers.
Click to expand...


Republicans don't know the half of it 
This has to be fact checked. But one thing is definitely true - the $5B Trump wants now is just the down payment. He plans to spend $25B altogether.

“Mr. Abramovich, a Russian national with Israeli citizenship, is an ally of Russian president Putin, and a personal friend of Donald Trump and his son in law (Trump has enjoyed many jaunts aboard Abramovich’s luxury yacht). Mr. Abramovich is part owner (with several other Russian billionaires) of a steel company called Evraz - located in Canada - which, coincidentally, is the only one which can manufacture the specific type of metal beams Mr. Trump wants for his wall. (There was a Chinese company which could deliver the same product, but since Mr. Trump's trade war with China, they can no longer effectively provide it to the US.)
If the wall is built, Mr. Abramovich's company - in which Russian president Putin also happens to own stock through a complicated series of shell companies - stands to make roughly one billion US dollars during the first stage of construction alone. By the time the wall is completed, with costs estimated to run to almost 30 billion dollars (not 5 billion as the Republican parrots have been squawking), Evraz will likely triple in value.”
Small wonder ‘The Don’ is intransigent, if Trump doesn't get his wall he's a dead man. they will not be happy if they don't see a return from their 'investment' - and ‘their’ man!


----------



## danielpalos

edward37 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can always rely on left-wing actions to cost more while simultaneously culminating in worse results. We saw that with Obama and the Democrats when they “promised” their stimulus package would ensure that unemployment would never hit 8%. Instead, for almost a trillion dollars, unemployment skyrocketed to over 10%.
> 
> We see this sad reality once again with the border wall and subsequent government shutdown. For $5 billion we could have funded about 1/5 of the total wall. But instead, Democrats cost us $6 billion for absolutely *nothing*. Nothing. We have nothing to show for that $6 billion, when for $5 billion we could have had a substantial increase in border security.
> 
> Report: Standard & Poor's claims gov't shutdown will cost more than border wall
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express wall building power.  Government should never be shut down over any Implied powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans don't know the half of it
> This has to be fact checked. But one thing is definitely true - the $5B Trump wants now is just the down payment. He plans to spend $25B altogether.
> 
> “Mr. Abramovich, a Russian national with Israeli citizenship, is an ally of Russian president Putin, and a personal friend of Donald Trump and his son in law (Trump has enjoyed many jaunts aboard Abramovich’s luxury yacht). Mr. Abramovich is part owner (with several other Russian billionaires) of a steel company called Evraz - located in Canada - which, coincidentally, is the only one which can manufacture the specific type of metal beams Mr. Trump wants for his wall. (There was a Chinese company which could deliver the same product, but since Mr. Trump's trade war with China, they can no longer effectively provide it to the US.)
> If the wall is built, Mr. Abramovich's company - in which Russian president Putin also happens to own stock through a complicated series of shell companies - stands to make roughly one billion US dollars during the first stage of construction alone. By the time the wall is completed, with costs estimated to run to almost 30 billion dollars (not 5 billion as the Republican parrots have been squawking), Evraz will likely triple in value.”
> Small wonder ‘The Don’ is intransigent, if Trump doesn't get his wall he's a dead man. they will not be happy if they don't see a return from their 'investment' - and ‘their’ man!
Click to expand...

we have a profit motive for the wall and a manufactured social motive where Government solves the problem not Capitalism.


----------



## The Purge

A collection of Links to the $7,000,000,000 that Obama gave to South Africa.....

Via email....

With all this talk about funding the wall, I thought that it would be fun to see what happened to all that money that Obama gave away to everyone else. He gave money to everyone, if you recall. He gave money to South Korea. He gave money to Iran. He gave money to the PLA. He gave money to Zambia. He gave money to the UN. He gave money to every single social cause on the planet, and then some more just to rub it in the faces of his distractors. 






Now, Donald Trump is asking for $7B for a wall in America. If you look at the budget that was crafted by the democrats after their parties, sexual romps, and back-slapping good times with the lobbists, you will note that they have provided money for everything...except a wall.

There is money for transexual dog parks in Finland, money for statues in Russia, money for kick-backs to just about every liberal cause on the planet...but none for the wall.

So, remember that? Remember the wall and lets look at the $7 billion that he gave to South Africa for their (heh heh) energy grid...

US Aid for Africa
Obama's Africa plan needs more money...
Obama's Africa gift - Where did the money go?
Obama's power Africa plan goes nowhere.

Well, of course, we all know the real answers here. Don't we, boys and girls? Yup it all went to the pockets of major political figures. many of which soon afterwards took control of the government, and is now stripping white people of their land.






Now, that's all water under the bridge. If it 's a hot day and you drop your ice cream on the sidewalk, it's pretty much gone. There is a rare person indeed who will try to lick it up off the sidewalk....

So, consider how Obama got that $7 billion dollars through a Republican controlled Congress and Senate, and now cannot do it. He cannot do a thing. And, while we all argue about the "swamp" and the "deep state", we need to keep something in mind. And, maybe even Ann is correct about this...

Our nation no longer exists. The president has no power. He really does not. Oh, we can laugh and joke about some judges trying to undo anything he does, and point out the good things that he did, but the argument that is still flashing in big red neon in front of our faces must still be addressed.


*When there is an emergency that results in the death of Americans, and the President is hamstrung to take any actions on it, is not the President no-longer in control?*

Think about this for a second. If there is a person dying in the street. An ambulance pulls up, but they do not attend to the dying person. Instead they stand by and wait for approval. Are the EMS techs effective? Or are thy just window dressing to give the illusion of medical care? Think about it.


----------



## danielpalos

simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.


----------



## P@triot

The American people will not tolerate the left any further. That's why *Donald Trump* sits in the White House as we speak. Thank you Candace Owens for exposing the outrageous lies of the lunatics on the left.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no express immigration clause so it cannot be about beling legal to the law.


----------



## edward37

danielpalos said:


> simply using the Other Peoples' tax money is socialism.


Does Trump want a wall to KEEP IN all those many 1000's with expired visas?? Why doesn't the moron start there??


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> There is no express immigration clause so it cannot be about beling legal to the law.


Oh snowflake...we've been over this dozens of times already. No matter how many times you attempt to deny reality, it will not change *reality*. Haven't you learned that by now?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no express immigration clause so it cannot be about beling legal to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh snowflake...we've been over this dozens of times already. No matter how many times you attempt to deny reality, it will not change *reality*. Haven't you learned that by now?
> 
> View attachment 245021
Click to expand...

A naturalization clause; we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A naturalization clause; we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.


That’s like saying we should have no speeding problems with speed limits. 

We have problems because asshole lefties violate said naturalization clause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A naturalization clause; we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s like saying we should have no speeding problems with speed limits.
> 
> We have problems because asshole lefties violate said naturalization clause.
Click to expand...

all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.; we should have no illegals.


----------



## sparky

TE]


----------



## sparky

> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.; we should have no illegals.



Trump's on it....



*Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.

4:40 AM - 11 Jan 2019


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


That’s *impossible* since the mother fuckers sneak in and thus we don’t know they are here.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.


Says _who_?


----------



## danielpalos

sparky said:


> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.; we should have no illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's on it....
> 
> 
> 
> *Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.
> 
> 4:40 AM - 11 Jan 2019
Click to expand...

too bad he got "stuck with the right wing".

he could be claiming, "only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy with a naturalization clause."


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s *impossible* since the mother fuckers sneak in and thus we don’t know they are here.
Click to expand...

Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> Says _who_?
Click to expand...

Our Constitution.  It is a federal responsibility not a State responsibility.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> Says _who_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  It is a federal responsibility not a State responsibility.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution does *not* state “all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id”. Why do you feel the need to make shit up _every_ time you post?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s *impossible* since the mother fuckers sneak in and thus we don’t know they are here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
Click to expand...

We’re trying. But you criminals on the left are blocking a border wall.


----------



## sparky

Only from the criminals on the right who want cheap labor ID'd....


----------



## P@triot

sparky said:


> Only from the criminals on the right who want cheap labor ID'd....


Who are you even talking to and what are you even respond to?!? 

Can you ask an adult to show you how to hit “reply” and properly use this website?


----------



## sparky

Can you think outta the wall/no wall 2 dimesional _nail-in-head _narrative y'all parrot here P@triot?

~S~


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> Says _who_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  It is a federal responsibility not a State responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The U.S. Constitution does *not* state “all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id”. Why do you feel the need to make shit up _every_ time you post?
Click to expand...

Entry into the Union is a federal obligation.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> all foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s *impossible* since the mother fuckers sneak in and thus we don’t know they are here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’re trying. But you criminals on the left are blocking a border wall.
Click to expand...

Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing while insisting they are not just plain socialists on a national basis.


----------



## danielpalos

sparky said:


> Only from the criminals on the right who want cheap labor ID'd....


the right wing doesn't care about the law, only their bigotry and socialism on a national basis.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Entry into the Union is a federal obligation.


No snowflake...immigration is a federal responsibility. There is 0 “obligation” to “enter” _anyone_ into the “union”. Again, why do you feel the need to lie in every post? Your propaganda campaign for Putin would be much more effective if your sprinkled in some truth.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> We’re trying. But you criminals on the left are blocking a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing while insisting they are not just plain socialists on a national basis.
Click to expand...

As I’ve taught you before, dumb ass, you can’t have “capitalist” government. Government is a political issue. Capitalism is an economic system.

Besides, what does that have to do with the fact that you criminals on the left are blocking the border wall (while your dumb ass screams “upgrade infrastructure”)???


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entry into the Union is a federal obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> No snowflake...immigration is a federal responsibility. There is 0 “obligation” to “enter” _anyone_ into the “union”. Again, why do you feel the need to lie in every post? Your propaganda campaign for Putin would be much more effective if your sprinkled in some truth.
Click to expand...

Where is the specific immigration power to enforce for the general welfare?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> We’re trying. But you criminals on the left are blocking a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing while insisting they are not just plain socialists on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I’ve taught you before, dumb ass, you can’t have “capitalist” government. Government is a political issue. Capitalism is an economic system.
> 
> Besides, what does that have to do with the fact that you criminals on the left are blocking the border wall (while your dumb ass screams “upgrade infrastructure”)???
Click to expand...

national Capitalists understand the capital difference, national Socialists don't.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Where is the specific immigration power to enforce for the general welfare?


We’ve been over this dozens of times. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.


> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization


Can you write it down? Posting it for you over and over because you’re ignorant is just getting old.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> We’re trying. But you criminals on the left are blocking a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing while insisting they are not just plain socialists on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I’ve taught you before, dumb ass, you can’t have “capitalist” government. Government is a political issue. Capitalism is an economic system.
> 
> Besides, what does that have to do with the fact that you criminals on the left are blocking the border wall (while your dumb ass screams “upgrade infrastructure”)???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> national Capitalists understand the capital difference, national Socialists don't.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you can’t explain it because you’re just posting nonsensical stuff as a Paid Russian Troll in hopes of spamming? Got it!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the specific immigration power to enforce for the general welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve been over this dozens of times. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.
> 
> 
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you write it down? Posting it for you over and over because you’re ignorant is just getting old.
Click to expand...

a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause.  why is the right wing so incompetent in public venues but want to be taken seriously?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> We’re trying. But you criminals on the left are blocking a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism; What is That, Sayeth the Right Wing while insisting they are not just plain socialists on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I’ve taught you before, dumb ass, you can’t have “capitalist” government. Government is a political issue. Capitalism is an economic system.
> 
> Besides, what does that have to do with the fact that you criminals on the left are blocking the border wall (while your dumb ass screams “upgrade infrastructure”)???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> national Capitalists understand the capital difference, national Socialists don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words, you can’t explain it because you’re just posting nonsensical stuff as a Paid Russian Troll in hopes of spamming? Got it!
Click to expand...

i understand you have no clue how to use Capitalism instead of national socialism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause.


Actually, that is *exactly* what it is... 

Maybe ask Putin to increase the training fund for English?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> i understand you have no clue how to use Capitalism instead of national socialism.


So in other words, you can’t explain it because you’re just posting nonsensical stuff as a Paid Russian Troll in hopes of spamming? Got it!


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a naturalization clause is not an immigration clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is *exactly* what it is...
> 
> Maybe ask Putin to increase the training fund for English?
Click to expand...

only immigration clauses cause illegal problems.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i understand you have no clue how to use Capitalism instead of national socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, you can’t explain it because you’re just posting nonsensical stuff as a Paid Russian Troll in hopes of spamming? Got it!
Click to expand...

not enough morals for a Truth (value) in argumentation argument, _right_ _winger_?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> not enough morals for a Truth (value) in *argumentation* *argument*, _right_ _winger_?


Oohff...Putin _really_ needs increase his English language training budget.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only immigration clauses cause illegal problems.


Noooo...only breaking the law causes “illegal problems”.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?

And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.

Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?

We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not enough morals for a Truth (value) in *argumentation* *argument*, _right_ _winger_?
> 
> 
> 
> Oohff...Putin _really_ needs increase his English language training budget.
Click to expand...

diversion is nothing but fallacy; 

fallacy is all the right wing has.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only immigration clauses cause illegal problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Noooo...only breaking the law causes “illegal problems”.
Click to expand...

there is no immigration clause, illegal.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> diversion is nothing but fallacy;


Illiteracy is nothing but ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> diversion is nothing but fallacy;
> 
> 
> 
> Illiteracy is nothing but ignorance.
Click to expand...

not dumb enough for the right wing?


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
Click to expand...

drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> diversion is nothing but fallacy;
> 
> 
> 
> Illiteracy is nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?
Click to expand...

Believe me, you’re dumb enough for the entire planet.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> diversion is nothing but fallacy;
> 
> 
> 
> Illiteracy is nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe me, you’re dumb enough for the entire planet.
Click to expand...

only the right wing, never gets it.  

how moral is that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> diversion is nothing but fallacy;
> 
> 
> 
> Illiteracy is nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe me, you’re dumb enough for the entire planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

Well...in our defense...it is _really_ difficult to “get” your profound level of stupidity. It’s akin to trying to understand the IQ of an ant. We can’t think on a level so low and so simplistic as to develop an IQ test for an ant.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
Click to expand...

If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> diversion is nothing but fallacy;
> 
> 
> 
> Illiteracy is nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not dumb enough for the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe me, you’re dumb enough for the entire planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well...in our defense...it is _really_ difficult to “get” your profound level of stupidity. It’s akin to trying to understand the IQ of an ant. We can’t think on a level so low and so simplistic as to develop an IQ test for an ant.
Click to expand...

the right wing is just as bad as AOC; y'all make up anything you want.

There is no express wall building clause and we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause nor any form of common offense clause.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home
Click to expand...

Government solves all problems for the right wing, not Capitalism.  How long until a margin call?
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing, not Capitalism.  How long until a margin call?
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Click to expand...

The 2007 TARP bank bailout is the perfect example of that.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing, not Capitalism.  How long until a margin call?
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2007 TARP bank bailout is the perfect example of that.
Click to expand...

The Richest Capitalists were Too Big to fail under our form of (alleged) Capitalism.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home
Click to expand...

the Progressives would never allow that to happen. It would be considered a violation of their rights to have a trial, innocent until proven guilty. Just like it would solve the anchor baby problem if we got rid of the 14th amendment. It isn't going to happen as long as Progressives keep winning elections.

The wall is a real option that would really work.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Progressives would never allow that to happen. It would be considered a violation of their rights to have a trial, innocent until proven guilty. Just like it would solve the anchor baby problem if we got rid of the 14th amendment. It isn't going to happen as long as Progressives keep winning elections.
> 
> The wall is a real option that would really work.
Click to expand...

Not when American companies like Mara Largo keep employing illegals.

Stop that you won’t need a wall. Like before Reagan.

This is one reason the gap between rich and poor widened. Hiring illegals instead of Americans who expect an American wage.

Your own party is split on this. And you blame us


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Now it’s 21 billion? From Mexico will pay to 5 billion to now 21?
> 
> And you do realize even 21 won’t do it.
> 
> Trump just lost 5 billion. Now you want 21? This must be a tactic. Then we compromise and give the brat 5?
> 
> We don’t need a wall. We need men, drones with cameras and trucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> drones with cameras won't stop people from crossing the border.
> men, trucks won't keep them outside of our country with our catch and release in country policy. The only way more man power and electronics would work is if we immediately tossed them back where they came from without processing through our courts. Since we have to give them rights it's best to not let them here at all so it is no longer an issue. Only a wall will keep them out where the worlds poor are not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we changed our policies drones and trucks would be all we need. Go get them, put them on a bus, send them home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Progressives would never allow that to happen. It would be considered a violation of their rights to have a trial, innocent until proven guilty. Just like it would solve the anchor baby problem if we got rid of the 14th amendment. It isn't going to happen as long as Progressives keep winning elections.
> 
> The wall is a real option that would really work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when American companies like Mara Largo keep employing illegals.
> 
> Stop that you won’t need a wall. Like before Reagan.
> 
> This is one reason the gap between rich and poor widened. Hiring illegals instead of Americans who expect an American wage.
> 
> Your own party is split on this. And you blame us
Click to expand...

If they don't get in they can't be hired.


----------



## skews13

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



It’s going to cost more than that. Let the first private land owner in Texas have their property taken at any price and you can kiss Texas good bye as a red state.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​


Why didn't you say you just wanted a 55 mile fence/wall?
Republicans were desperate to avoid another bruising shutdown. They tentatively agreed Monday night to far less money for President Donald Trump’s border wall than the White House’s $5.7 billion wish list, settling for a figure of nearly $1.4 billion, according to congressional aides. The funding measure is through the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.

It’s not clear whether Trump will support the deal, although GOP negotiators said they were hopeful.

The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December. The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/border-wall-bill-agreement-congress_us_5c622413e4b09247fcc116fe


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you say you just wanted a 55 mile fence/wall?
> Republicans were desperate to avoid another bruising shutdown. They tentatively agreed Monday night to far less money for President Donald Trump’s border wall than the White House’s $5.7 billion wish list, settling for a figure of nearly $1.4 billion, according to congressional aides. The funding measure is through the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
> 
> It’s not clear whether Trump will support the deal, although GOP negotiators said they were hopeful.
> 
> The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December. The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/border-wall-bill-agreement-congress_us_5c622413e4b09247fcc116fe
Click to expand...

When did I say I wanted a 55 mile fence?  The bill currently under discussion is not acceptable, period.  If Trump signs it, he will lose his base and lose the election in 2020.

Trump hasn't agreed to it, so why do you behave as if he has?

Why are you so eager to leave this country undefended?  Just admit you support open borders.  No decent American is going to pretend that you aren't a traitor and a douchebag.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you say you just wanted a 55 mile fence/wall?
> Republicans were desperate to avoid another bruising shutdown. They tentatively agreed Monday night to far less money for President Donald Trump’s border wall than the White House’s $5.7 billion wish list, settling for a figure of nearly $1.4 billion, according to congressional aides. The funding measure is through the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
> 
> It’s not clear whether Trump will support the deal, although GOP negotiators said they were hopeful.
> 
> The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December. The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/border-wall-bill-agreement-congress_us_5c622413e4b09247fcc116fe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I say I wanted a 55 mile fence?  The bill currently under discussion is not acceptable, period.  If Trump signs it, he will lose his base and lose the election in 2020.
> 
> Trump hasn't agreed to it, so why do you behave as if he has?
> 
> Why are you so eager to leave this country undefended?  Just admit you support open borders.  No decent American is going to pretend that you aren't a traitor and a douchebag.
Click to expand...

I don't support open borders.  I support common sense.  Same way I don't support taking away guns.  I support common sense gun legislation.

You cons are nucking futs

A 215 mile wall is a waste of time and money.  You guys almost seem open to wasting money just to get a win.  Silly really.  Sad too.

Yes, Trump is going to lose the next election

I'm more for going after illegal employers.  Other countries don't have this problem because the corporations that do business there don't hire illegals.

Places like Mara Largo accept fake ID's knowing that the person is not legal.

And they often say they used Everify but they actually didn't.  For example the farm owned by a Republican who's illegal worker killed Mollie Tibbetts originally said they used Everify but then it was later found out no they did not.  Where is your outrage?

So we aren't going to go along with you fucking idiots until you stop being sheep to the GOP who are playing you son.  Like a fiddle.


----------



## sealybobo

*1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*

*2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.*

*3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny*

*4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel*

*5. More search-and-rescue capacity*

*6. Body cameras*

*7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators*

*8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform*


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> *2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.*
> 
> *3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny*
> 
> *4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel*
> 
> *5. More search-and-rescue capacity*
> 
> *6. Body cameras*
> 
> *7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators*
> 
> *8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform*


comprehensive immigration reform is Democrat speak for let them all in fuck the americans and their need to have living wages.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> *2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.*
> 
> *3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny*
> 
> *4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel*
> 
> *5. More search-and-rescue capacity*
> 
> *6. Body cameras*
> 
> *7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators*
> 
> *8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform*
> 
> 
> 
> comprehensive immigration reform is Democrat speak for let them all in fuck the americans and their need to have living wages.
Click to expand...

Republicans will even tell you we need the manpower. Your racism won’t trump business. No pun intended.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*


*The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*

*


sealybobo said:



			2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
		
Click to expand...

*How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.

*


sealybobo said:



			3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
		
Click to expand...

**What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*

*


sealybobo said:



			4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
		
Click to expand...

What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*

*


sealybobo said:



			5. More search-and-rescue capacity
		
Click to expand...

*How does that improve border security?

*


sealybobo said:



			6. Body cameras
		
Click to expand...

*How does that improve border security?

*


sealybobo said:



			7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
		
Click to expand...

*
How does that improve border security?

*


sealybobo said:



			8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
		
Click to expand...

*
Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.

Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.

Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.

Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.

No one was fooled.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you say you just wanted a 55 mile fence/wall?
> Republicans were desperate to avoid another bruising shutdown. They tentatively agreed Monday night to far less money for President Donald Trump’s border wall than the White House’s $5.7 billion wish list, settling for a figure of nearly $1.4 billion, according to congressional aides. The funding measure is through the fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
> 
> It’s not clear whether Trump will support the deal, although GOP negotiators said they were hopeful.
> 
> The agreement means 55 miles (88 kilometers) of new fencing — constructed through existing designs such as metal slats instead of a concrete wall — but far less than the 215 miles (345 kilometers) the White House demanded in December. The fencing would be built in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
> 
> Lawmakers Say They’ve Reached Tentative Agreement To Prevent Government Shutdown | HuffPost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I say I wanted a 55 mile fence?  The bill currently under discussion is not acceptable, period.  If Trump signs it, he will lose his base and lose the election in 2020.
> 
> Trump hasn't agreed to it, so why do you behave as if he has?
> 
> Why are you so eager to leave this country undefended?  Just admit you support open borders.  No decent American is going to pretend that you aren't a traitor and a douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't support open borders.  I support common sense.  Same way I don't support taking away guns.  I support common sense gun legislation.
> 
> You cons are nucking futs
> 
> A 215 mile wall is a waste of time and money.  You guys almost seem open to wasting money just to get a win.  Silly really.  Sad too.
> 
> Yes, Trump is going to lose the next election
> 
> I'm more for going after illegal employers.  Other countries don't have this problem because the corporations that do business there don't hire illegals.
> 
> Places like Mara Largo accept fake ID's knowing that the person is not legal.
> 
> And they often say they used Everify but they actually didn't.  For example the farm owned by a Republican who's illegal worker killed Mollie Tibbetts originally said they used Everify but then it was later found out no they did not.  Where is your outrage?
> 
> So we aren't going to go along with you fucking idiots until you stop being sheep to the GOP who are playing you son.  Like a fiddle.
Click to expand...

Building the wall is common sense.  The measures you propose are ineffective and far more expensive than building the wall.   You're a lying douchebag who wants the flow if illegals to increase.

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
Click to expand...

No one says you can’t work on border security

Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses


----------



## SaxxyBlues

Actually I think this would solve the problem of the wall.  We as American citizens should seriously think about the following:


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
Click to expand...

Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing. 

You're a fucking douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here


I don't make a fucking dime off of illegals.  They're here because they vote Democrat.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...

So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?


----------



## SandSquid

[/QUOTE]
Building the wall is common sense.  The measures you propose are ineffective and far more expensive than building the wall.   You're a lying douchebag who wants the flow if illegals to increase.

Who do you think you're fooling?[/QUOTE]


If it was common sense, why when Republicans were heading both houses of Congress could Trump not convince them to support his wall?

I mean he could have done this shutdown at anytime.  Sure it would look pretty bad shutting down the government because Republicans weren't supporting it.  

Sure Trump had this grand plan for a wall.  Stop the repatriation of US money to Mexico and force Mexico to lose billions until they write a check.   Why hasn't he even explored the exact plan he laid out to his voters?  Instead just said "well I'll stick you with the bill".  

An ineffective wall when the overwhelming majority of illegals cross at ports of entry and companies don't even use Everify for decades, hiring them by the thousands to build and run their golf courses and country clubs?  It's the biggest scam since the Ponzi Scheme first showed up.  

But the wall where they aren't crossing is where we need the money?  And we have actual border patrol leaders, actual wall experts, actual studies by republican groups showing the wall won't help.  So why throw money at it?  

I can see why Republican elected officials wouldn't give Trump a dollar for his wall when they had control of Congress.   I can see why this bipartisan committee wants to focus on smarter security at the border and focus on where the issues truly are, and give $0 for the wall.


----------



## SandSquid

SaxxyBlues said:


> Actually I think this would solve the problem of the wall.  We as American citizens should seriously think about the following:
> 
> View attachment 245552




Umm, what's the cost?  I mean you are talking about well over 4000 square miles of property that needs to be ripped away from American's for that.  

And average shipping canal (panama and Suez) cost about half a billion per mile at 1/5th the width.  so 2.5 billion per mile (if we can keep the wage costs down to Panama level wages) for flat ground canals.   We are crossing the rocky mountains here.  Yes, 5300 ft of elevation change.  So we need dams and locks to account for that.   Every ship has to be lifted 5300 feet then lowered back 5300 foot on the other side.

Based on the flat land costs we are starting in todays money, we are looking at 2.5 trillion dollars to start.  Then add the locks to lift hundreds of millions of tons of ships a mile every day.  Then cut through a mountain range and flood that channel as well.   This is the places where Trump has said a wall is too tough to build there, and you want a 2 mile wide canal through it?


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
Click to expand...

The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.


----------



## danielpalos

Our welfare clause is general and we have a commerce clause to be better capitalists.  Only the right wing has a problem with it.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...


Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.  

I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.

Today's Immigration Battle Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)

The corporatist Republicans ("amnesty!") are fighting with the racist Republicans ("fence!"), and it provides an opportunity for progressives to step forward with a clear solution to the immigration problem facing America.

It's frankly astonishing to hear "progressives" reciting corporatist/racist/conservative talking points, recycled through "conservative Democratic" politicians trying to pander to the relatively small percentage of recently-legal (mostly through recent amnesties or birth) immigrants who are trying to get their relatives into this country by means of Bush's proposed guest worker program or the many variations thereof being proposed.

Every nation has an obligation to limit immigration to a number that will not dilute its workforce, but will maintain a stable middle class - if it wants to have a stable democracy. This has nothing to do with race, national origin, or language (visit Switzerland with it's ethnic- and language-dived areas!), and everything to do with economics.

The simple way to do this today is to require that _all_ non-refugee immigrants go through the same process to become American citizens or legal workers in this country (no amnesties, no "guest workers," no "legalizations") regardless of how they got here; to confront employers who hire illegals with draconian financial and criminal penalties; and to affirm that while health care (and the right to provide humanitarian care to all humans) is an absolute right for all people within our boundaries regardless of status, a paycheck, education, or subsidy is not.

The Republican (and Democratic) corporatists who want a cheap labor force, and the Republican (and Democratic) racists who want to build a fence and punish humanitarian aid workers, are equally corrupt and anti-progressive. As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...


Let me repeat the most important part

As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels.

So no wall is necessary if we go after illegal employers.  And no wall will work if we continue to allow illegal employers to hire illegals.

Trump hires illegals.  Undocumented Workers Lose Their Jobs at Yet Another Trump Property

Why did it take him until now to fire those illegals when we knew for years he was hiring illegals?  It's clearly a political move.  Now he can say he doesn't hire illegals.  Ok great.  Now is he going after other companies who do?

Or how about the Republican owned farm that hired Mollie Tibbetts murderer?  They lied and said they used Everify.  And we know companies like this are accepting fake ID's knowing they are fake ID's.  Duh!  

Mollie Tibbetts' alleged killer worked on farm under an alias

Does he look like a John Budd to you?


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...

This is what we were saying about all this in 2006

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.  Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. So the media isn’t really liberal now is it? 

Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.

"illegal immigration" is a red-hot issue for American voters.

Encouraging a rapid increase in the workforce by encouraging companies to hire non-citizens is one of the three most potent tools conservatives since Ronald Reagan have used to convert the American middle class into the American working poor. (The other two are destroying the governmental protections that keep labor unions viable, and ending tariffs while promoting trade deals like NAFTA/WTO/GATT that export manufacturing jobs.)

Thus, Americans are concerned that a "flood of illegal immigrants" coming primarily across our southern border is, to paraphrase Lou Dobbs, "wiping out the American middle class." And there is considerable truth to it, as part of the three-part campaign mentioned earlier.

But Dobbs and his fellow Republicans say the solution is to "secure our border" with a fence like that used by East Germany, but that stretches a distance about the same as that from Washington, DC to Chicago. It'll be a multi-billion-dollar boon to Halliburton and Bechtel, who will undoubtedly get the construction and maintenance contracts, but it won't stop illegal immigration. (Instead, people will legally come in on tourist and other visas, and not leave when their visas expire.)

The fact is that we had an open border with Mexico for several centuries, and "illegal immigration" was never a serious problem. Before Reagan's presidency, an estimated million or so people a year came into the US from Mexico - and the same number, more or less, left the US for Mexico at the end of the agricultural harvest season. Very few stayed, because there weren't jobs for them.  Non-citizens didn't have access to the non-agricultural US job market, in large part because of the power of US labor unions (before Reagan 25% of the workforce was unionized; today the private workforce is about 7% unionized), and because companies were unwilling to risk having non-tax-deductible labor expenses on their books by hiring undocumented workers without valid Social Security numbers.  But Reagan put an end to that. His 1986 amnesty program, combined with his aggressive war on organized labor (begun in 1981), in effect told both employers and non-citizens that there would be few penalties and many rewards to increasing the US labor pool (and thus driving down wages) with undocumented immigrants. A million people a year continued to come across our southern border, but they stopped returning to Latin America every fall because instead of seasonal work they were able to find permanent jobs.


----------



## sealybobo

Lou Dobbs, the most visible media champion of this issue, always starts his discussion of the issue with a basic syllogism - 1. Our border is porous. 2. People are coming across our porous border and diluting our labor markets, driving down US wages. 3. Therefore we must make the border less porous.

Lou's syllogism, however, ignores the real problem, the magnet drawing people to risk life and limb to illegally enter this country - Illegal Employers. Our borders have always been porous (and even with a "fence" will still allow through "tourists" by the millions), but we've never had a problem like this before.

Fifty years ago we didn't have an "illegal immigration" problem, because back then we didn't have a conservative "Illegal Employer" problem.

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.  "In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."


----------



## sealybobo

Only the CNN poll asked the question: "Would you favor increasing penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants?" Two-thirds of Americans, of all party affiliations, said, "Yes," but it went virtually unreported in mainstream media coverage.

Liberal media my ass


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...


Easy, simple, cheap, painless. No fence required. No mass deportations necessary. No need for Homeland Security to get involved. When jobs are not available, most undocumented workers will simply leave the country

Republicans, however, are not going to allow a discussion of "Illegal Employers." Instead, they will continue to hammer the issue of "Illegal Immigrants," and tie that political albatross around the necks of Democrats (who seem all too willing to accept it).

Now even Bush is talking like the Republicans in the House of Representatives - time to "get tough" and give Halliburton a few hundred billion to build a fence.

There isn't really much of an illegal immigration problem - it's an Illegal Employer problem. When we clear up the Illegal Employer problem in this country, we'll be back like we were before Reagan started allowing employers to behave illegally. When non-citizens can't get a job, most of them will go home, as they always have in the past. We don't need a fence, we don't need amnesty, we don't need mass roundups or deportations, and we for sure don't need guest workers. We have as many unemployed citizens in this nation as there are illegal immigrants - in my state of Michigan, for example, Flint and Detroit have massive unemployment since Reagan and his corporate cronies declared war on working people. When we get rid of Illegal Employers, that's one step in helping the job market tighten up so that legal employers will have to pay a living wage to attract legal citizens to work. That and rational labor and trade policies, and we can begin to restore our middle class and put our cities back together.

Get rid of the Illegal Employers - toss a few CEOs into jail and shut down the outlaw companies - and the rest of this part of the problem will be easy and inexpensive to fix...

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"


----------



## sealybobo

to truly protect the pay standards of workers here in the United States we need to crack down on the Illegal Employers. They're the magnets that are drawing people in from all over the world, many of whom come in as tourists and then overstay because they get illegal jobs. And these Illegal Employers are breaking the law - both immigration laws and IRS laws. I suggest that we need to tighten up these laws against Illegal Employers, adding huge fines for first offenses, jail time for CEOs for second offenses, and the corporate death penalty - dissolve their charters to operate - for repeat offenders.

When companies are repeat offenders, they should be dissolved, their assets sold to reimburse their shareholders, and let other, more ethical companies pick up the slack.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> 
> How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> 
> *What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
Click to expand...

1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> 
> How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> 
> *What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me repeat the most important part
> 
> As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels.
Click to expand...

they don't come in because the wall stops them then they can't be hired.
You don't have to be a citizen to be an Uber driver.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me repeat the most important part
> 
> As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they don't come in because the wall stops them then they can't be hired.
> You don't have to be a citizen to be an Uber driver.
Click to expand...

You guys are impossible. Go ahead, build your wall before trump loses in 2020


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me repeat the most important part
> 
> As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they don't come in because the wall stops them then they can't be hired.
> You don't have to be a citizen to be an Uber driver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are impossible. Go ahead, build your wall before trump loses in 2020
Click to expand...

I'll be happy if that happens.


----------



## SandSquid

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
Click to expand...


1.  Yes people do want them here.  We have the rich needing them to build and work at their resorts like Donald Trump.   So much so that they won't even use E-verify to see if they are legal or not.  We have farmers all through the midwest needing them for their fields.


----------



## Dragonlady

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
Click to expand...


The wall isn't going to stop illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are not coming across the southern border, the flying in through your airports, and arriving LEGALLY and then overstaying their visas.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me repeat the most important part
> 
> As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they don't come in because the wall stops them then they can't be hired.
> You don't have to be a citizen to be an Uber driver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are impossible. Go ahead, build your wall before trump loses in 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll be happy if that happens.
Click to expand...


Prepare to be unhappy because it's not going to happen.


----------



## SandSquid

[/QUOTE]
they don't come in because the wall stops them then they can't be hired.
You don't have to be a citizen to be an Uber driver.[/QUOTE]

And for decades Trump Companies have ignored verification methods as well and continued to hire illegal immigrants.  

Take Mar a Lago.  You have to attempt to hire Americans before you hire foreign workers.   They put a tiny ad in a newspaper which you have to apply by mail or fax (no phone or email or modern communication), so they can skirt that rule and hire foreigners first, legal and illegal.

Or Trump Model Management which hires foreign models on tourist visa's intentionally and according to multiple models teaches them to lie to Customs at the border about their reason for visiting.  

Or Trump tower, built by undocumented Polish workers who didn't know their rights, and when they were not paid, took him to court and won.  

Some companies like those rely on illegal immigrants.


----------



## danielpalos

SandSquid said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes people do want them here.  We have the rich needing them to build and work at their resorts like Donald Trump.   So much so that they won't even use E-verify to see if they are legal or not.  We have farmers all through the midwest needing them for their fields.
Click to expand...

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  

We subscribe to Capitalism, our welfare clause is General, and we have a Commerce Clause.  

Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy under those conditions.


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes people do want them here.  We have the rich needing them to build and work at their resorts like Donald Trump.   So much so that they won't even use E-verify to see if they are legal or not.  We have farmers all through the midwest needing them for their fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> We subscribe to Capitalism, our welfare clause is General, and we have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy under those conditions.
Click to expand...

Oh shut up


----------



## SandSquid

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
Click to expand...


I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.  

Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.  

Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.  

Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."   

They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada". 

That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"

That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."

That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."

That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"

So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with 

1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
3. Mail service entry into the US.
4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.  

It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
Click to expand...

I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.

Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."
> 
> They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada".
> 
> That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"
> 
> That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."
> 
> That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."
> 
> That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"
> 
> So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with
> 
> 1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
> 2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
> 3. Mail service entry into the US.
> 4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
> Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.
> 
> It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.
Click to expand...

Great post. Republicans here will just blow off what you said because it was more than 3 words and they’ll come back with Sanctuary Cities!


----------



## SandSquid

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
Click to expand...


Imagine if we did the same thing with drugs as we do with illegal immigrants?   Imagine if instead of human trafficking those businesses were built on selling illegal drugs from Mexico?  

But of course, drug dealers don't vote, farmers do, the businessmen like the ones that own Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago vote and give money to politicians, or run themselves.  So we get the double standard that illegal immigration is bad... but hiring thousands of them for decades and even hiding them from authorities is acceptable.  

I mean we have some talking that this is a national emergency.  National Emergencies have been declared to block the sale of goods to ISIS in Syria, or in response to terrorist attacks.

Imagine if we knew companies were helping goods get to ISIS?   Imagine if we knew that a company was actually providing cover for terrorists to live in the US?   Do we hold those farmers, those Trump properties to the same standard?


----------



## Dragonlady

Canada has no big problem with illegal immigration because you cannot get hired without a valid Social Insurance Number.  

When employers submit your withholding, it is applied to your Revenue Canada accounts for Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, and Income Tax.  If Revenue Canada can't find the SIN number in their data base, or the names don't match, the employer will be notified and asked to confirm identity.  Companies are fined $10,000 per worker for hiring undocumented workers.

We don't have an illegal immigrant problem in Canada because people won't hire them.  And workers in Canada won't work under the table, because if you don't pay your taxes, you can't get any of the cradle to grave social programs that make us the best country to live in the world.  If you work under the table, there is no unemployment insurance.  No Canada Pension Plan.  No Workers Compensation if you're injured at work.  You're shooting yourself in the foot not to pay taxes because your will personally benefit from the taxes you pay.  The stuff you call "free shit", we call "programs which help ALL Canadians", like the Canada Health Act, Old Age Security, Child Benefits (commonly called the "baby bonus").  If you're unemployed and need training, there's a program for that.  Want to start a new business:  there's a program to provide business management training, start-up support, and networking.

This is government working for all its people, not just the wealthy, and not against the people and in favour of the corporations, which so much of American government is doing.  Corporations SHOULD be providing a living wage, paid vacations, family leave, health care, maternity leave and job security for pregnant women, and other benefits to their workers and not have American taxpayers subsidize their wages, and not just booking record profits while their workers need government programs or two full-time jobs to feed their families.  That lunacy on the hoof.

The average American taxpayer gets so little from the federal government that they are loathe to pay taxes.  A bloated federal government and the world's biggest military is not something I'd want to pay for, but rich Americans have achieved Nirvana.  They have off-loaded all of these costs onto the middle class, for as long as their wealth holds out.  The entire wealth of the nation is now flowing unimpeded to the top 20%, thanks to Trump and his tax cuts.  The middle class are howling as their promises tax refunds aren't appearing.

Once the middle class has been bankrupted like the working class has been, you'll officially be a banana republic, but the plutocrats which engineered this will be long dead, and their grandchildren will be erecting statues to them in their gated enclaves.


----------



## Dragonlady

Oh, and you can't use a dead person's SIN number either.  The Canada Pension Plan pays a death benefit of $2500 for every Canadian who has ever worked, or paid taxes.  So of course all deaths are reported to Revenue Canada, and the SIN is flagged as "Deceased".

In the age of super computers, there is no reason not to hold employers financially responsible for hiring illegal immigrants.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes people do want them here.  We have the rich needing them to build and work at their resorts like Donald Trump.   So much so that they won't even use E-verify to see if they are legal or not.  We have farmers all through the midwest needing them for their fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> We subscribe to Capitalism, our welfare clause is General, and we have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy under those conditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh shut up
Click to expand...

don't really care about the Law, right wingers?  why whine about alleged illegals.


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
Click to expand...

gibberish.


----------



## danielpalos

why is the Right Wing so morally challenged?

Kettles calling less fortunate pots, black, is not very moral.


----------



## Dragonlady

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
Click to expand...


So, in other words, "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you".


----------



## SandSquid

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
Click to expand...


Pretty straight forward.  I mean it would be kind of hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built by selling illegal drugs in the US to say he is tough on illegal drug smuggling.   Why isn't it hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built on hiring illegal immigrants to say he is tough on illegal immigration?


----------



## danielpalos

Dragonlady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in other words, "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you".
Click to expand...

should we insist on some clue and some Cause?


----------



## sealybobo

Dragonlady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in other words, "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you".
Click to expand...

The article I posted even explained how there is no way Republican voters are ever going to demonize corporations because they've been brainwashed to worship them even when they break the law.  Look at Trump.  His followers don't give a fuck about the law, decency, cheating, lying..

Hell even Don himself hires illegals.  We've been screaming that for how long and he just now let them go in the last couple weeks.  Why?  Why did he keep them on so long when we all knew they were undocumented workers?  Doesn't matter to Republicans.  Their comeback will be SANCTUARY CITIES and BUILD A WALL.  

2 and 3 word thoughts is all they are good for.


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty straight forward.  I mean it would be kind of hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built by selling illegal drugs in the US to say he is tough on illegal drug smuggling.   Why isn't it hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built on hiring illegal immigrants to say he is tough on illegal immigration?
Click to expand...


Think about this.  Even if they build the wall and it's a complete failure and doesn't do shit they'll just lie and say it did work.  How do I know they will do that?

Trump lies at MAGA rally, gets expertly fact-checked in real-time by Beto O’Rourke

Think about it Republicans.  Trump went down to El Paso and lied to you all.  And you don't even care.


----------



## danielpalos

SandSquid said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty straight forward.  I mean it would be kind of hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built by selling illegal drugs in the US to say he is tough on illegal drug smuggling.   Why isn't it hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built on hiring illegal immigrants to say he is tough on illegal immigration?
Click to expand...

in my opinion, it should be more about the waste of the Peoples' tax monies.  We allege to subscribe to Capitalism not socialism on a national basis. We have a general welfare clause and a commerce clause but no actual immigration clause. 

Only the Right Wing insists we lose money on national socialist policies instead of national capitalist policies, like good capitalists should.


----------



## sealybobo

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
Click to expand...

What part confused you the most?


----------



## danielpalos

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
Click to expand...

There is no actual immigration clause in our federal Constitution and employers can usually afford to hire counsel.


----------



## SandSquid

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
Click to expand...


Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
Click to expand...


It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.  

Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
Click to expand...


It's weird when I start posting all this knowledge Republicans usually stop replying back.  

I'm reading this article I posted and there is so much great information about how things were in the 2000's when Republicans were defending illegals.  And today they are claiming we are defending illegals just because we don't want to build a wall.  Bush wanted a wall/fence too back then.  It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.  It won't work.  But that's all Republicans will talk about because they don't want to do what works.

Here is more interesting shit I found in that article.

Encouraging a rapid increase in the workforce by encouraging companies to hire non-citizens is one of the three most potent tools conservatives since Ronald Reagan have used to convert the American middle class into the American working poor. (The other two are destroying the governmental protections that keep labor unions viable, and ending tariffs while promoting trade deals like NAFTA/WTO/GATT that export manufacturing jobs.)

When labor markets are tight, wages go up. When labor markets are awash in workers willing to work at the bottom of the pay scale, unskilled and semi-skilled wages overall will decrease and when the cost of labor goes down, the result usually isn't a decrease in prices, but, instead, an increase in corporate and CEO profits.  This is because the marketplace sets prices, but the cost of labor helps set profits. For example, when Nike began manufacturing shoes in Third World countries with labor costs below US labor costs, it didn't lead to $15 Nikes - their price held, and even increased, because the market would bear it. Instead, that reduction in labor costs led to Nike CEO Phil Knight becoming a multi-billionaire.)


----------



## bripat9643

SandSquid said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
Click to expand...


Another bullshit lie.  40% come from overstaying their visas.  You can't post a single sentence without lying.



SandSquid said:


> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.



How do you know this?  Another bullshit lie.  You're 2:2 now.



SandSquid said:


> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.



They couldn't get away with that if local mayors didn't prevent our immigration laws from being enforced.



SandSquid said:


> If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.



Douchebag politicians that you support prevent the laws from being enforced.  

I'm done reading your post. What's the post when you're such an chronic liar?


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."
> 
> They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada".
> 
> That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"
> 
> That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."
> 
> That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."
> 
> That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"
> 
> So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with
> 
> 1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
> 2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
> 3. Mail service entry into the US.
> 4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
> Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.
> 
> It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great post. Republicans here will just blow off what you said because it was more than 3 words and they’ll come back with Sanctuary Cities!
Click to expand...

We blow it off because he can't post a single sentence that is actually true.  He takes after you in that regard.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Oh, and you can't use a dead person's SIN number either.  The Canada Pension Plan pays a death benefit of $2500 for every Canadian who has ever worked, or paid taxes.  So of course all deaths are reported to Revenue Canada, and the SIN is flagged as "Deceased".
> 
> In the age of super computers, there is no reason not to hold employers financially responsible for hiring illegal immigrants.


Agreed, but's who's preventing that? It sure isn't Republicans.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty straight forward.  I mean it would be kind of hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built by selling illegal drugs in the US to say he is tough on illegal drug smuggling.   Why isn't it hypocritical for a President who's business empire was built on hiring illegal immigrants to say he is tough on illegal immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about this.  Even if they build the wall and it's a complete failure and doesn't do shit they'll just lie and say it did work.  How do I know they will do that?
> 
> Trump lies at MAGA rally, gets expertly fact-checked in real-time by Beto O’Rourke
> 
> Think about it Republicans.  Trump went down to El Paso and lied to you all.  And you don't even care.
Click to expand...

Why should government do anything if that's the case?


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
Click to expand...

Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Renovate land ports of entry, and staff them properly*
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Give Border Patrol the proven sensor and communications technology it needs, where it doesn’t raise civil-liberties concerns for border-zone residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. More screeners and polygraph administrators to reduce hiring times while maintaining scrutiny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> **What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Provide inducements to retain existing border security personnel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. More search-and-rescue capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Body cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. More CBP Internal Affairs investigators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8. And finally: comprehensive immigration reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another bullshit lie.  40% come from overstaying their visas.  You can't post a single sentence without lying.
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know this?  Another bullshit lie.  You're 2:2 now.
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't get away with that if local mayors didn't prevent our immigration laws from being enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Douchebag politicians that you support prevent the laws from being enforced.
> 
> I'm done reading your post. What's the post when you're such an chronic liar?
Click to expand...


I'm done taking you seriously.  Idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> 
> How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> 
> *What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."
> 
> They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada".
> 
> That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"
> 
> That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."
> 
> That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."
> 
> That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"
> 
> So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with
> 
> 1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
> 2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
> 3. Mail service entry into the US.
> 4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
> Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.
> 
> It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great post. Republicans here will just blow off what you said because it was more than 3 words and they’ll come back with Sanctuary Cities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blow it off because he can't post a single sentence that is actually true.  He takes after you in that regard.
Click to expand...


If we were a couple I'd ask for a divorce citing irreconcilable differences.  LOL


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The problem is between the ports of entry, moron.  You obviously don't want to do a thing about that.*
> 
> 
> How does that physically stop someone from crossing the border?  Building the wall is cheaper and far more effective.  The best part of the wall is that it prevents illegals from stepping foot in the US and all the associated legal and processing costs of removing them.
> 
> 
> *What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> *
> What good is that when the Dims refuse to provide funding for more border gaurds?*
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> 
> 
> How does that improve border security?
> 
> Amnesty, in other words.  That harms our illegal alien problem.
> 
> Everything you propose is either more expensive and less effective than building the wall, or it's positively counter productive.
> 
> Everything you propose is can only work after the illegal has already entered the country.  The process of removing an illegal who has already entered is 10 times more effective and takes infinite time longer than building a wall.
> 
> Your claim that you support border security is pure horseshit.  You're a sleazy lying open borders traitor.
> 
> No one was fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another bullshit lie.  40% come from overstaying their visas.  You can't post a single sentence without lying.
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know this?  Another bullshit lie.  You're 2:2 now.
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't get away with that if local mayors didn't prevent our immigration laws from being enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Douchebag politicians that you support prevent the laws from being enforced.
> 
> I'm done reading your post. What's the post when you're such an chronic liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm done taking you seriously.  Idiot.
Click to expand...

Ditto, moron.  However, I will continue to point out that you're a douchebag, a liar, and just plain wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one says you can’t work on border security
> 
> Who’s in charge of the money? We are.  Now here’s 1 billion. Go do your thing. There’s lots of things you can do to fight illegal immigration besides build a wall. Start raiding republican businesses
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."
> 
> They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada".
> 
> That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"
> 
> That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."
> 
> That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."
> 
> That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"
> 
> So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with
> 
> 1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
> 2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
> 3. Mail service entry into the US.
> 4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
> Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.
> 
> It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great post. Republicans here will just blow off what you said because it was more than 3 words and they’ll come back with Sanctuary Cities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blow it off because he can't post a single sentence that is actually true.  He takes after you in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were a couple I'd ask for a divorce siting irreconcilable differences.  LOL
Click to expand...

Oh Boo Hoo!  Did you actually believe you could persuade me to accept your dishonest douchebag point of view?


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> 
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
Click to expand...


No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.  

You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.

You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.


----------



## BS Filter

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.
> 
> You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.
> 
> You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.
Click to expand...

There is no other side's point.  You're all a bunch of damn liars.


----------



## sealybobo

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."
> 
> They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada".
> 
> That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"
> 
> That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."
> 
> That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."
> 
> That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"
> 
> So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with
> 
> 1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
> 2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
> 3. Mail service entry into the US.
> 4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
> Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.
> 
> It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great post. Republicans here will just blow off what you said because it was more than 3 words and they’ll come back with Sanctuary Cities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blow it off because he can't post a single sentence that is actually true.  He takes after you in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were a couple I'd ask for a divorce siting irreconcilable differences.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Boo Hoo!  Did you actually believe you could persuade me to accept your dishonest douchebag point of view?
Click to expand...


Here's what I want to do with your wall


----------



## sealybobo

BS Filter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.
> 
> You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.
> 
> You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no other side's point.  You're all a bunch of damn liars.
Click to expand...

How come your own BS doesn't make it through your filter?

Meanwhile, enjoy the 1.7 bill you got for a fence.  Make it count.


----------



## BS Filter

sealybobo said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.
> 
> You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.
> 
> You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no other side's point.  You're all a bunch of damn liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come your own BS doesn't make it through your filter?
> 
> Meanwhile, enjoy the 1.7 bill you got for a fence.  Make it count.
Click to expand...

That 1.7 billion isn't the total for the fence.  Trump also has a phone and pen, just like Obama.  Idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> BS Filter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.
> 
> You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.
> 
> You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no other side's point.  You're all a bunch of damn liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How come your own BS doesn't make it through your filter?
> 
> Meanwhile, enjoy the 1.7 bill you got for a fence.  Make it count.
Click to expand...

Trump is going to add $23 billion to it.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the answer for that would be because Trumps Dept of Homeland security has released their report that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants come from overstaying visa's and through ports of entry.   So rather than hype up a couple thousand in a caravan, why not stop ignoring the hundreds of thousands entering through other means.
> 
> Terrorists overwhelmingly are entering the US through the legal border crossing, as do drugs according to the Trump administration.
> 
> Then in the US we have companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants with no penalty.  We literally have private companies intentionally weakening our borders by providing a reward for illegal immigrants who get into the country.  They have been involved in this push to reward and at times even help illegal immigrants enter the US.  If this is a National Emergency, that those businesses are actively opposing that for decades, what kind of traitors does that make them to the USA?  If we say that someone selling drugs from Mexico in the US is bad, why don't we hold them in the same light?   Well a big reason why is a lot of them are the Republican base.   Farmers. Mar-a-lago.  Trump Tower.  Heck, models have reported that Trump Modeling when assisting in the trafficking of those humans into the US, told them to lie to immigration officials about the purpose of their visits on their visa's so they could illegally work in the USA.  So maybe that explains why he'd want a wall knowing most illegal immigrants don't come in that way.  Gotta keep his businesses running somehow.
> 
> Some people read the 2018 DEA report on drug smuggling which says "The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers."
> 
> They see that report that "Fentanyl is transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada".
> 
> That "Traffickers hide cocaine amongst legitimate cargo of commercial trucks or within secret compartments built within passenger vehicles. Traffickers are also increasingly targeting seaports along the East Coast of the United States as law enforcement efforts have increased along the SWB"
> 
> That "Traffickers employ various methods and techniques in the concealment of methamphetamine, such as human couriers at ports of entry, commercial flights, parcel services, and commercial buses."
> 
> That "Large quantities of foreign-produced marijuana are smuggled into the United States via personally owned vehicles, commercial vehicles, buses, rail systems, subterranean tunnels, small boats, unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, and catapults..."
> 
> That "As these liquid spice substances are widely available in China and other Asian and European countries, most U.S.-based traffickers can purchase the drugs already synthesized and have them shipped through mail carriers to perform final processing and packaging"
> 
> So when you look at the DEA and DHS and other groups our issues are with
> 
> 1.  Land ports of entry at southern border.
> 2. Shipping ports on our coastlines.
> 3. Mail service entry into the US.
> 4. Boats, drones, catapults and tunnels.
> Then maybe comes things a wall will have any effect on.
> 
> It's like a guy who wants to get his car running as well and quickly as he can for an emergency, and he has 4 flat tires, a blown engine, no transmission, and his ECU is fried, and he's using his emergency money to replace the stereo.   And somehow people choose to be idiots and say that's the way to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Great post. Republicans here will just blow off what you said because it was more than 3 words and they’ll come back with Sanctuary Cities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blow it off because he can't post a single sentence that is actually true.  He takes after you in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were a couple I'd ask for a divorce siting irreconcilable differences.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Boo Hoo!  Did you actually believe you could persuade me to accept your dishonest douchebag point of view?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what I want to do with your wall
Click to expand...


Feel free.


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.
> 
> You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.
> 
> You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.
Click to expand...

True, corporations love illegals.  Your belief that they're all Republicans, however, is fallacious.  Although there are plenty that are.  Douchebag establishment Republican politicians are happy to do the bidding of these corporations.  However Republican voters are opposed to illegal immigration.  No excuses.  We have to fight the traitors in our own party along with the entire Dim establishment.


----------



## Slyhunter

SandSquid said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes people do want them here.  We have the rich needing them to build and work at their resorts like Donald Trump.   So much so that they won't even use E-verify to see if they are legal or not.  We have farmers all through the midwest needing them for their fields.
Click to expand...

Not the people who voted for Trump.


----------



## Slyhunter

Dragonlady said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall isn't going to stop illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are not coming across the southern border, the flying in through your airports, and arriving LEGALLY and then overstaying their visas.
Click to expand...

the ones flying in and overstaying have money so I don't give a fuck about them. It's those who sneak across the border and pop out an anchor baby so they can get welfare and go to school on state grants that I care about.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?  Why don't you just say "here's nothing?"   Why would we want to do anything before we build the wall?  That's your fetish.  That's your excuse for doing nothing.
> 
> You're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
Click to expand...

put employers in jail and their jobs disappear. stupid to do that we want more jobs not less.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's weird when I start posting all this knowledge Republicans usually stop replying back.
> 
> I'm reading this article I posted and there is so much great information about how things were in the 2000's when Republicans were defending illegals.  And today they are claiming we are defending illegals just because we don't want to build a wall.  Bush wanted a wall/fence too back then.  It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.  It won't work.  But that's all Republicans will talk about because they don't want to do what works.
> 
> Here is more interesting shit I found in that article.
> 
> Encouraging a rapid increase in the workforce by encouraging companies to hire non-citizens is one of the three most potent tools conservatives since Ronald Reagan have used to convert the American middle class into the American working poor. (The other two are destroying the governmental protections that keep labor unions viable, and ending tariffs while promoting trade deals like NAFTA/WTO/GATT that export manufacturing jobs.)
> 
> When labor markets are tight, wages go up. When labor markets are awash in workers willing to work at the bottom of the pay scale, unskilled and semi-skilled wages overall will decrease and when the cost of labor goes down, the result usually isn't a decrease in prices, but, instead, an increase in corporate and CEO profits.  This is because the marketplace sets prices, but the cost of labor helps set profits. For example, when Nike began manufacturing shoes in Third World countries with labor costs below US labor costs, it didn't lead to $15 Nikes - their price held, and even increased, because the market would bear it. Instead, that reduction in labor costs led to Nike CEO Phil Knight becoming a multi-billionaire.)
Click to expand...

We didn't elect Trump because he's a Republican.


----------



## bripat9643

Slyhunter said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall isn't going to stop illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are not coming across the southern border, the flying in through your airports, and arriving LEGALLY and then overstaying their visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the ones flying in and overstaying have money so I don't give a fuck about them. It's those who sneak across the border and pop out an anchor baby so they can get welfare and go to school on state grants that I care about.
Click to expand...

I want all of them to go back where the came from, and then I want legal immigration reduced to zero.


----------



## SandSquid

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> 
> 
> gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's weird when I start posting all this knowledge Republicans usually stop replying back.
> 
> I'm reading this article I posted and there is so much great information about how things were in the 2000's when Republicans were defending illegals.  And today they are claiming we are defending illegals just because we don't want to build a wall.  Bush wanted a wall/fence too back then.  It was a stupid idea then and it's a stupid idea now.  It won't work.  But that's all Republicans will talk about because they don't want to do what works.
> 
> Here is more interesting shit I found in that article.
> 
> Encouraging a rapid increase in the workforce by encouraging companies to hire non-citizens is one of the three most potent tools conservatives since Ronald Reagan have used to convert the American middle class into the American working poor. (The other two are destroying the governmental protections that keep labor unions viable, and ending tariffs while promoting trade deals like NAFTA/WTO/GATT that export manufacturing jobs.)
> 
> When labor markets are tight, wages go up. When labor markets are awash in workers willing to work at the bottom of the pay scale, unskilled and semi-skilled wages overall will decrease and when the cost of labor goes down, the result usually isn't a decrease in prices, but, instead, an increase in corporate and CEO profits.  This is because the marketplace sets prices, but the cost of labor helps set profits. For example, when Nike began manufacturing shoes in Third World countries with labor costs below US labor costs, it didn't lead to $15 Nikes - their price held, and even increased, because the market would bear it. Instead, that reduction in labor costs led to Nike CEO Phil Knight becoming a multi-billionaire.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We didn't elect Trump because he's a Republican.
Click to expand...


Yes, it was because he promised he would repeal Obamacare and make mexico pay for the wall.   Whoops.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part confused you the most?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe his google translate broke and he can't convert it into cyrillic?  lol.   Seemed like something a 3rd grader could read.   But learning a second language is tough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s amazing how similar Republicans today are to liberals in 2006.  Remember back then when we were complaining about illegal employers Republicans who are programmed to argue with us no matter what were saying they were just here doing jobs Americans wouldn’t do.  Or do you want to pay more to have your grass cut they asked.  I have forgotten their flip flop.
> 
> Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "Illegal Immigration" they are promoting one of the GOP's potent Republican Party frames.  The reality is that we don't have an "Illegal Immigration" problem in America. We have an "Illegal Employer" problem.
> 
> Yet it's almost never mentioned in the mainstream media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats where saying that, shit for brains.  There may have been some douchebag establishment RINO Republicans saying it, but the rank and file have always supported sanctions on employers who hire illegals.  It's already against the law for them to hire illegals.  However, the Democrat politicians refuse to enforce the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you god damn fool.  If you read what I posted this was a plot.
> 
> You don't seem to mind admitting there is a deep state RINO problem in America when any Republican speaks out against Trump but now talking to me you can't seem to admit you have a RINO deep state corporate sellout problem where they and the corporations who lobby them loved the illegals coming and they did it to break unions and increase profits.
> 
> You aren't worth arguing with.  You never see even a smidgen of the other sides point.  You're a shit head.  Complete and utter shit head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, corporations love illegals.  Your belief that they're all Republicans, however, is fallacious.  Although there are plenty that are.  Douchebag establishment Republican politicians are happy to do the bidding of these corporations.  However Republican voters are opposed to illegal immigration.  No excuses.  We have to fight the traitors in our own party along with the entire Dim establishment.
Click to expand...

tax cut economics, price cut economics; the right wing enjoys appealing to fallacies of false Cause.


----------



## SandSquid

bripat9643 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall isn't going to stop illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are not coming across the southern border, the flying in through your airports, and arriving LEGALLY and then overstaying their visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the ones flying in and overstaying have money so I don't give a fuck about them. It's those who sneak across the border and pop out an anchor baby so they can get welfare and go to school on state grants that I care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want all of them to go back where the came from, and then I want legal immigration reduced to zero.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is throw those owners and CEO's in prison that have spent decades skirting the legal frameworks for working in the US and allowing illegal immigrants a reason to flood into this country.   That people like Trump who have caused this emergency need locked up?  

Interesting position.   I mean he is the President who has the most illegal immigrants working for him over the years right?   They even made his bed.   Heck his golf club actually hid illegals they had working off the work roster from the secret service.   Ouch.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the wall is the only way? Really? Since when? Since trump said so?
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put employers in jail and their jobs disappear. stupid to do that we want more jobs not less.
Click to expand...

Other Americans will pick up the slack and they won’t dare hire illegals.

You keep making excuses to protect illegal employers.


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wall isn't going to stop illegal immigrant because illegal immigrants are not coming across the southern border, the flying in through your airports, and arriving LEGALLY and then overstaying their visas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the ones flying in and overstaying have money so I don't give a fuck about them. It's those who sneak across the border and pop out an anchor baby so they can get welfare and go to school on state grants that I care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want all of them to go back where the came from, and then I want legal immigration reduced to zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is throw those owners and CEO's in prison that have spent decades skirting the legal frameworks for working in the US and allowing illegal immigrants a reason to flood into this country.   That people like Trump who have caused this emergency need locked up?
> 
> Interesting position.   I mean he is the President who has the most illegal immigrants working for him over the years right?   They even made his bed.   Heck his golf club actually hid illegals they had working off the work roster from the secret service.   Ouch.
Click to expand...

Trump is a sanctuary corporation


----------



## P@triot

Build the damn wall...

Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16



That is not nearly a reliable site.
Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.

The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.


----------



## Rigby5

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called "alternatives" that you propose are far less effective and more expensive.  Yet you whine about the cost of the wall.  You don't really want border security.  You want more illegals to enter the country.  As I said, you're a fucking douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put employers in jail and their jobs disappear. stupid to do that we want more jobs not less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other Americans will pick up the slack and they won’t dare hire illegals.
> 
> You keep making excuses to protect illegal employers.
Click to expand...



There is no authority in the Constitution to impose penalties on those who hire anyone they want.
Putting the burden of identifying citizenship on employers is illegal.


----------



## Norman

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
Click to expand...


It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.

Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.


----------



## IM2

Norman said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.
> 
> Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.
Click to expand...


Do we send back the immigrant owned small businesses and corporations? How about foreign money that immigrates into the stock market?


----------



## Norman

IM2 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.
> 
> Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we send back the immigrant owned small businesses and corporations? How about foreign money that immigrates into the stock market?
Click to expand...


Money doesn't immigrate, it's invested. I know you have about three brain cells but try to keep up.

I was talking about stop bringing in more. Sad that you couldn't keep up.


----------



## IM2

Norman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.
> 
> Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we send back the immigrant owned small businesses and corporations? How about foreign money that immigrates into the stock market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money doesn't immigrate, it's invested. I know you have about three brain cells but try to keep up.
> 
> I was talking about stop bringing in more. Sad that you couldn't keep up.
Click to expand...


You are truly dumb.

*How about foreign money that immigrates into the stock market?*


----------



## sealybobo

Rigby5 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put employers in jail and their jobs disappear. stupid to do that we want more jobs not less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other Americans will pick up the slack and they won’t dare hire illegals.
> 
> You keep making excuses to protect illegal employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no authority in the Constitution to impose penalties on those who hire anyone they want.
> Putting the burden of identifying citizenship on employers is illegal.
Click to expand...


This is utter right wing bullshit.  You're saying we shouldn't have any laws in regards to hiring illegals?  

Reclaiming the Issues: "It's an Illegal Employer Problem"

Yet it's almost never mentioned in the so called corporate media, because to point it out could slightly reduce the profits and CEO salaries of many of America's largest multi-state and multinational corporations - who both own the media and contribute heavily to conservative politicians. Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed.

Thus, Americans are concerned that a "flood of illegal immigrants" coming primarily across our southern border is, to paraphrase Lou Dobbs, "wiping out the American middle class." And there is considerable truth to it, as part of the three-part campaign mentioned earlier.

But Dobbs and his fellow Republicans say the solution is to "secure our border" with a fence like that used by East Germany, but that stretches a distance about the same as that from Washington, DC to Chicago. It'll be a multi-billion-dollar boon to Halliburton and Bechtel, who will undoubtedly get the construction and maintenance contracts, but it won't stop illegal immigration. (Instead, people will legally come in on tourist and other visas, and not leave when their visas expire.)

The fact is that we had an open border with Mexico for several centuries, and "illegal immigration" was never a serious problem. Before Reagan's presidency, an estimated million or so people a year came into the US from Mexico - and the same number, more or less, left the US for Mexico at the end of the agricultural harvest season. Very few stayed, because there weren't jobs for them.

Non-citizens didn't have access to the non-agricultural US job market, in large part because of the power of US labor unions (before Reagan 25% of the workforce was unionized; today the private workforce is about 7% unionized), and because companies were unwilling to risk having non-tax-deductible labor expenses on their books by hiring undocumented workers without valid Social Securitynumbers.

But Reagan put an end to that. His 1986 amnesty program, combined with his aggressive war on organized labor (begun in 1981), in effect told both employers and non-citizens that there would be few penalties and many rewards to increasing the US labor pool (and thus driving down wages) with undocumented immigrants. A million people a year continued to come across our southern border, but they stopped returning to Latin America every fall because instead of seasonal work they were able to find permanent jobs.

The magnet drawing them? Illegal Employers.


----------



## sealybobo

Rigby5 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that's not true.  I don't want illegals coming here.  We've been railing about this at least since 2006.  Sorry but your party is split on this one.
> 
> I happen to agree with you stupid!  I just don't think a wall is the answer.  It's boondoggle.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put employers in jail and their jobs disappear. stupid to do that we want more jobs not less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other Americans will pick up the slack and they won’t dare hire illegals.
> 
> You keep making excuses to protect illegal employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no authority in the Constitution to impose penalties on those who hire anyone they want.
> Putting the burden of identifying citizenship on employers is illegal.
Click to expand...


We will never solve the illegal immigrant problem if you are going to allow corporations to hire illegal workers.  

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into theHomeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."

So when Clinton was president, we went after illegal employers.  When Bush got in, that all stopped.

So this is proof everyone who really loves illegal workers.  It isn't sactuary cities.  It's Republican owned companies who hire illegals for the cheap labor

Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican

So it's not liberals who are guilty of Mollie's death.  It's Republicans.  They love the cheap labor.  Tell them to stop please.  Stop hiring illegals.

Oh I forgot we can't because the Constitution says we can't.


----------



## The Original Tree

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



*Dummy, You can't build a wall when Globalism is your goal.  You also can't have a country exercising it's rights to be a Sovereign Nation Either.

Don't you never learn Nothin?*


----------



## Rigby5

Norman said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.
> 
> Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.
Click to expand...



Drugs are a personal choice for recreation, just like those who choose to do dangerous and expensive things like sky diving, water skiing, flying, etc.  There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow for any federal drug law at all.  The whole federal war on drugs is completely illegal.

And while state and local drug laws are possible, clearly the failure of Prohibition of Alcohol should have taught us that wars on recreational activities are a really, really bad idea and just greatly increase crime.


----------



## Rigby5

Norman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.
> 
> Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we send back the immigrant owned small businesses and corporations? How about foreign money that immigrates into the stock market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money doesn't immigrate, it's invested. I know you have about three brain cells but try to keep up.
> 
> I was talking about stop bringing in more. Sad that you couldn't keep up.
Click to expand...


The wealth of the US was totally and completely created by immigration, which was never illegal before around 1900 or so.
For example, poor Irish and Chinese immigrants created the wealthy railroad tycoons.


----------



## Rigby5

The Original Tree said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dummy, You can't build a wall when Globalism is your goal.  You also can't have a country exercising it's rights to be a Sovereign Nation Either.
> 
> Don't you never learn Nothin?*
Click to expand...



Countries do not have rights, like to be sovereign or not.
Only individuals have rights.
And they can choose to create a sovereign nation or not.
As for immigration, that is a question of who was here first?
And those of European ancestry really don't have that good of a claim.


----------



## Rigby5

sealybobo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You don't want illegals here you want them to legally freely flood our country with low wage no skilled workers as many as want to come. They're illegal because we don't need them and we don't want them.
> 2. no wall means we have to pick them up try them in court and house them until their hearing and deportation. stopping them with a wall means we don't have to do any of those things.
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained to you how we never needed a wall before and don’t need a wall if we crack down on illegal employers.
> 
> Jail time and close their business down. Do you think employers will be more careful then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> put employers in jail and their jobs disappear. stupid to do that we want more jobs not less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other Americans will pick up the slack and they won’t dare hire illegals.
> 
> You keep making excuses to protect illegal employers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no authority in the Constitution to impose penalties on those who hire anyone they want.
> Putting the burden of identifying citizenship on employers is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will never solve the illegal immigrant problem if you are going to allow corporations to hire illegal workers.
> 
> "Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into theHomeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.
> 
> "In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."
> 
> So when Clinton was president, we went after illegal employers.  When Bush got in, that all stopped.
> 
> So this is proof everyone who really loves illegal workers.  It isn't sactuary cities.  It's Republican owned companies who hire illegals for the cheap labor
> 
> Man charged in Tibbetts' death worked at Iowa farm linked to prominent Republican
> 
> So it's not liberals who are guilty of Mollie's death.  It's Republicans.  They love the cheap labor.  Tell them to stop please.  Stop hiring illegals.
> 
> Oh I forgot we can't because the Constitution says we can't.
Click to expand...


Following the money is pretty much a basic right.
People pretty much has the right to do what saves or gains them money.


----------



## basquebromance

"a civil war is gonna break out in the GOP over immigration. just like it happened between Rockefeller and Goldwater. a war for the soul and future of the GOP" - Patrick J Buchanan


----------



## danielpalos

show us the express immigration clause not right wing bigotry.  both, promote and provide are expressed in regard to the general welfare but not the common defense.


----------



## badger2

not when the personal choice is drug addicted which leads to crimes, following the money a basic right, Einstein


----------



## danielpalos

...subject to US jurisdiction is simply that.  Our Constitution applies.  There is no express immigration clause.  All foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general government and federally identified for civil purposes.  We should have no illegals or illegal underclass for the right wing to complain about, and we should be generating revenue on a per capita basis from foreign nationals in the US. We have an express Commerce clause and should be making money not losing money on border policies.


----------



## Slyhunter

Rigby5 said:


> Norman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build the damn wall...
> 
> Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not nearly a reliable site.
> Nor does it fit at all with information at all other sites.
> And most federal prosecutions are over things like the War on Drugs, which of course would be heavily weighted towards illegal immigrants.  Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> The reality is that illegal immigrants are generally here because of desperation poverty, and the last thing they would risk is being caught and sent back over a criminal action.  Their crime rate is almost half the average for citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does sound like the drug problem is very bad indeed. Just look at this post, this is your brain on some serious acid.
> 
> Of course illegal immigration should be worried about, and stopped as should legal immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs are a personal choice for recreation, just like those who choose to do dangerous and expensive things like sky diving, water skiing, flying, etc.  There is nothing in the Constitution that would allow for any federal drug law at all.  The whole federal war on drugs is completely illegal.
> 
> And while state and local drug laws are possible, clearly the failure of Prohibition of Alcohol should have taught us that wars on recreational activities are a really, really bad idea and just greatly increase crime.
Click to expand...

The future where you can walk into a fudge shop and sample Marijuana laced Fudge. Who is to force them to tell you if they laced it with something else to guarantee you come back for more?


----------



## deanrd

Mexicans hate the wall. But don’t worry, they’ll get over it.


----------



## Slyhunter

deanrd said:


> Mexicans hate the wall. But don’t worry, they’ll get over it.


Not as many.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is not nearly a reliable site.


That is *not* a reliable post (it’s from an uninformed, partisan hack).


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.


The _only_ thing “wrong” is your astounding ignorance and frightening views. Drugs are currently illegal. If you don’t like that, legally and properly change the law. But until then, they must be enforced.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we’re a third-world Banana Republic. Stop advocating for us to be a lawless society.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about *illegal* immigration.


The irony is so thick, one could cut it with a knife.

(Psst...even if drugs were legalized...that wouldn’t change our laws on people illegally entering our country)


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drug smugglers often are illegal immigrants, but it is the war on drugs that is wrong and should be stopped instead of worrying about illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing “wrong” is your astounding ignorance and frightening views. Drugs are currently illegal. If you don’t like that, legally and properly change the law. But until then, they must be enforced.
> 
> Either we are a nation of laws, or we’re a third-world Banana Republic. Stop advocating for us to be a lawless society.
Click to expand...


Way to support anti-Capitalist measures.


----------



## froggy

Now how are the Democrats going to get cheap labor in this country if Trump fences them out?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## P@triot

We need a massive wall (not some pitiful fence) and we need it now.

See the Illegal Immigration Crisis by the Numbers


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> We need a massive wall (not some pitiful fence) and we need it now.
> 
> See the Illegal Immigration Crisis by the Numbers


Only lousy capitalists lose money with a Commerce Clause.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Way to support anti-Capitalist measures.


I support being a nation of laws, you dumb-shit low-IQ polack.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a massive wall (not some pitiful fence) and we need it now.
> 
> See the Illegal Immigration Crisis by the Numbers
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money with a Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

Border security, law enforcement, and immigration are *not* “commerce” issues, you dumb fuck.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a massive wall (not some pitiful fence) and we need it now.
> 
> See the Illegal Immigration Crisis by the Numbers
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists lose money with a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Border security, law enforcement, and immigration are *not* “commerce” issues, you dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is general and covers this humanitarian issue.  Our Commerce Clause must mean we have to use capitalism whenever possible not the socialism of command economics and Government solving all problems.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

P@triot said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to support anti-Capitalist measures.
> 
> 
> 
> I support being a nation of laws, you dumb-shit low-IQ polack.
Click to expand...


Cracking down on Capitalists selling drugs is an anti-Capitalist measure.
So sorry about your Chimp brain problem.


----------



## Terri4Trump

bripat9643 said:


> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial


I hope Trump says that at the next State of the Union speech.


----------



## P@triot

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Cracking down on Capitalists selling drugs is an anti-Capitalist measure. So sorry about your Chimp brain problem.


By that “logic” - cracking down on “capitalists” selling sex-slaves is an “anti-capitalist” measure.

Capitalism *doesn’t* mean anarchy, you ignorant dumb polack. You’re an embarrassment. You’re so damn dumb, you make normals polacks look smart.


----------



## P@triot

Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...

U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions


----------



## lennypartiv

deanrd said:


> Mexicans hate the wall. But don’t worry, they’ll get over it.


It's time to make it an electric fence.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...
> 
> U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions


There is no criminality in seeking refuge, it is a natural right.


----------



## danielpalos

lennypartiv said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans hate the wall. But don’t worry, they’ll get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's time to make it an electric fence.
Click to expand...

the right wing only alleges to be for natural rights in abortion threads.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...
> 
> U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions
> 
> 
> 
> There is no criminality in seeking refuge, it is a natural right.
Click to expand...

One does *not* sneak across a border to “seek refuge”. They report to the embassy of the nation they would like asylum from in their own nation.

No matter how hard you try, you can’t lie your way into justifying the *criminal* actions of *illegal* aliens.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the right wing only alleges to be for natural rights in abortion threads.


Snowflake...there is no “natural right” to criminal activity. There is no “natural right” to _invade_ another nation. You lose.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...
> 
> U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions
> 
> 
> 
> There is no criminality in seeking refuge, it is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does *not* sneak across a border to “seek refuge”. They report to the embassy of the nation they would like asylum from in their own nation.
> 
> No matter how hard you try, you can’t lie your way into justifying the *criminal* actions of *illegal* aliens.
Click to expand...

means nothing until we have Jurisdiction.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing only alleges to be for natural rights in abortion threads.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...there is no “natural right” to criminal activity. There is no “natural right” to _invade_ another nation. You lose.
Click to expand...

there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  what criminal activity are you referring to?


----------



## Moscow Mitch McTraitor

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> ​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> _​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._



Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...
> 
> U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions
> 
> 
> 
> There is no criminality in seeking refuge, it is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does *not* sneak across a border to “seek refuge”. They report to the embassy of the nation they would like asylum from in their own nation.
> 
> No matter how hard you try, you can’t lie your way into justifying the *criminal* actions of *illegal* aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing until we have Jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

We already do, dumb ass. How embarrassing for you.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...
> 
> U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions
> 
> 
> 
> There is no criminality in seeking refuge, it is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does *not* sneak across a border to “seek refuge”. They report to the embassy of the nation they would like asylum from in their own nation.
> 
> No matter how hard you try, you can’t lie your way into justifying the *criminal* actions of *illegal* aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing until we have Jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already do, dumb ass. How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

that happens once on US soil, usually.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good! We shouldn’t be treating *criminals* to unlimited nights at the Waldorf Astoria...
> 
> U.S. citizen who spent 23 days in immigrant detention alleges 'inhumane' conditions
> 
> 
> 
> There is no criminality in seeking refuge, it is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One does *not* sneak across a border to “seek refuge”. They report to the embassy of the nation they would like asylum from in their own nation.
> 
> No matter how hard you try, you can’t lie your way into justifying the *criminal* actions of *illegal* aliens.
Click to expand...


That is crazy.
No one ever tries to get asylum in the country where they are threatened.
The all escape and then apply when they are safe.
And the are not trying to "sneak across the border".
They are showing up at the border crossing, in order appropriately apply.
And there is no way to claim that showing up at a border crossing to apply for asylum, is a criminal action.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing only alleges to be for natural rights in abortion threads.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake...there is no “natural right” to criminal activity. There is no “natural right” to _invade_ another nation. You lose.
Click to expand...


Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.


----------



## lennypartiv

Rigby5 said:


> Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
> We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
> And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
> Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.



You liberals just don't get it.  We became a great county when Europeans immigrated to America.  What's happening now is bringing America down.


----------



## Rigby5

Moscow Mitch McTraitor said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> ​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> _​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.
Click to expand...


Even more important is that immigrants pay taxes and actually are a huge net gain.
Or at least they would be if we let them work instead of spending money locking them up.
It is our foolish actions that make immigrants cost anything.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.


You really are the _worst_ troll I have ever come across. You’re so bad at it. 


> “*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”


That would be *Article I*, *Section 8* of the United States Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5

lennypartiv said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
> We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
> And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
> Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals just don't get it.  We became a great county when Europeans immigrated to America.  What's happening now is bringing America down.
Click to expand...


Not really.
The European who immigrated brought genocide, disease, war, crime, weapons, mercenaries, scalping, slavery, longer work hours, less freedom, more corruption, over population, global warming, etc.  
Actually, before the European illegal immigration and genocide, North America was pretty much a paradise.
We ruined it.


----------



## danielpalos

lennypartiv said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
> We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
> And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
> Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You liberals just don't get it.  We became a great county when Europeans immigrated to America.  What's happening now is bringing America down.
Click to expand...

nothing but right wing bigotry.  y'all only allege to care about natural rights in abortion threads.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are the _worst_ troll I have ever come across. You’re so bad at it.
> 
> 
> 
> “*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be *Article I*, *Section 8* of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

naturalization is not immigration.  why not become less ignorant, right wingers.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> You really are the _worst_ troll I have ever come across. You’re so bad at it.
> 
> 
> 
> “*To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization*, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be *Article I*, *Section 8* of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...


Technically that is referring to the rules of how one has to follow rules in order to become a citizen, and does not really have anything at all to do with immigration.
I assume there likely is some clause, but that is still not it yet.


----------



## otto105

4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy


----------



## Rigby5

I did run into this argument about immigration.

{...
*Immigration*

The Constitution never uses the word _immigration_, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, _Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong_, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the _word_ immigration does not mean that it lacks the _concept_ of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.

{...
*Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution*

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
...}
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> I did run into this argument about immigration.
> 
> {...
> *Immigration*
> 
> The Constitution never uses the word _immigration_, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
> 
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, _Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong_, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the _word_ immigration does not mean that it lacks the _concept_ of immigration.
> 
> There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
> Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
> ...}
> https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration
> 
> I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.
> 
> {...
> *Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution*
> 
> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
> ...}
> Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion


States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.


----------



## Rigby5

otto105 said:


> 4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy



I agree.
Immigrants are a net gain, they commit fewer crimes, pay more in taxes than they cost, and are a huge boost to the economy, both by being more productive at lower costs, and by buying more products and services locally.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did run into this argument about immigration.
> 
> {...
> *Immigration*
> 
> The Constitution never uses the word _immigration_, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
> 
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, _Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong_, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the _word_ immigration does not mean that it lacks the _concept_ of immigration.
> 
> There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
> Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
> ...}
> https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration
> 
> I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.
> 
> {...
> *Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution*
> 
> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
> ...}
> Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion
> 
> 
> 
> States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.
Click to expand...


That does not necessarily mean the US govenment has any authority over immigration either.
For example, what if someone in some state wanted to start up some business that needed some skill that was not available in the US.  I see no legal means of preventing him from importing those skills, as long as it is not an invasion.  States may not have authority over entry into the Union since 1808, but in 1808 there also were zero federal restriction on any sort of immigration at all.
I seem to remember that the first federal immigration restrictions were more like 1920 or so?
But I am not sure, since it seems they sent the Chinese rail workers back, and were often attacking Hispanics in the southwest.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did run into this argument about immigration.
> 
> {...
> *Immigration*
> 
> The Constitution never uses the word _immigration_, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?
> 
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, _Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong_, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the _word_ immigration does not mean that it lacks the _concept_ of immigration.
> 
> There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
> Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
> ...}
> https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration
> 
> I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.
> 
> {...
> *Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution*
> 
> "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
> ...}
> Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion
> 
> 
> 
> States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not necessarily mean the US govenment has any authority over immigration either.
> For example, what if someone in some state wanted to start up some business that needed some skill that was not available in the US.  I see no legal means of preventing him from importing those skills, as long as it is not an invasion.  States may not have authority over entry into the Union since 1808, but in 1808 there also were zero federal restriction on any sort of immigration at all.
> I seem to remember that the first federal immigration restrictions were more like 1920 or so?
> But I am not sure, since it seems they sent the Chinese rail workers back, and were often attacking Hispanics in the southwest.
Click to expand...

you miss the point.  there is no immigration clause.  the express power is an establishment clause for naturalization every time the right wing has nothing but bigotry for their reasons.


----------



## bripat9643

Moscow Mitch McTraitor said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> ​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> _​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.
Click to expand...

Two lies in one sentence.  The empirical evidence shows that walls work.


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> Moscow Mitch McTraitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> ​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> _​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more important is that immigrants pay taxes and actually are a huge net gain.
> Or at least they would be if we let them work instead of spending money locking them up.
> It is our foolish actions that make immigrants cost anything.
Click to expand...

How are they a gain to the guy whose job they took?


----------



## I c h i g o

bripat9643 said:


> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial



The Wall will pay for itself in time. It will be worth every penny.


----------



## Terri4Trump

bripat9643 said:


> *Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year*



The supreme court just gave Trump a win:


*Pelosi, Schumer reel as Supreme Court sides with Trump on $2.5B border plan*
> Democrats dub Supreme Court's border wall ruling 'regrettable' and 'nonsensical'


----------



## Terri4Trump

JoeB131 said:


> ......people who think a wall is a good idea.......



Tear down the fence around your house if you think they are a bad idea, you shithead hypocrite.

Assuming you own a house that is, lazy fuck


----------



## I c h i g o

Terri4Trump said:


> The supreme court just gave Trump a win:



That's awesome! I love when Trump wins! Because, America is also winning!


----------



## Terri4Trump

Enjoy: Hashtag BuildTheWall


----------



## Terri4Trump

Terri4Trump said:


> Enjoy: Hashtag BuildTheWall


----------



## I c h i g o

Hashtag BuildTheWall


----------



## Slyhunter

We are big and rich now, so we can afford to be picky. And it is our right to be so.


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.


Ohhhhhhhhhh Siete

450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.


By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico 

450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> AINT GONNA BE NO DAMN WALL -  deal with it idiots.


Siete is my favorite buffoon on USMB. Every time she makes a “prediction” it turns out to be 100% *wrong*. 

450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts


----------



## P@triot

Siete said:


> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.


You don’t see no wall, Siete? I see a wall. Hey bripat9643 - do you see a wall? 



 

President Trump border wall construction: 450 miles by 2020


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhhhhhhhh Siete
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
Click to expand...

That is just a start to an estimated 450 miles, out of 2500 miles.
And that is not likely to be finished once the time and cost starts adding up.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
Click to expand...


No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
The state has challenged it in court.
It is private property that would have to be used for most of it, so there very little being built.
{...
The Department of Interior says it is transferring 560 acres of federal land to the U.S. Army to speed up construction on 70 miles of border wall in New Mexico, California and Arizona.
...}


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> That is just a start to an estimated 450 miles, out of 2500 miles. And that is not likely to be finished once the time and cost starts adding up.


You guys are welcome to keep throwing out excuses and desperate theories all you want (that’s the beauty of free speech). At the end of the day, *President Trump* has kept _every_ promise he made. He’s building the wall.

And it speaks volumes about how much you leftists hate America that it pisses you off that President Trump is properly securing the border. All of you know each mile of wall makes it that much harder for you to steal elections.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely underway in New Mexico. Sorry, *not* sorry.


----------



## RealDave

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just a start to an estimated 450 miles, out of 2500 miles. And that is not likely to be finished once the time and cost starts adding up.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are welcome to keep throwing out excuses and desperate theories all you want (that’s the beauty of free speech). At the end of the day, *President Trump* has kept _every_ promise he made. He’s building the wall.
> 
> And it speaks volumes about how much you leftists hate America that it pisses you off that President Trump is properly securing the border. All of you know each mile of wall makes it that much harder for you to steal elections.
Click to expand...

Mexico is paying?  Coal jobs are back?  He doesn't golf?  He's at work all the time?  He is reducing our deficit, He won the trade war because they are easy to win.  And he released his tax returns.  He has balanced the budget. etc etc etc.

He has been replacing the border barriers that were there.


----------



## P@triot

RealDave said:


> He has been replacing the border barriers that were there.


----------



## P@triot

RealDave said:


> He won the trade war because they are easy to win.


Yes they are (when you’re the U.S.). But that’s not the point. The point is - he was willing to _fight_ the trade war.


----------



## P@triot

Facts matter (even though the left doesn’t want them to)


----------



## nat4900

P@triot said:


> Facts matter (even though the left doesn’t want them to)
> 
> View attachment 282485




Some people choose the wrong "heroes"

*Kevin Sorbo accused of sexual harassment by former co-star ...*


----------



## P@triot

nat4900 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts matter (even though the left doesn’t want them to)
> 
> View attachment 282485
> 
> 
> 
> Some people choose the wrong "heroes"
> 
> *Kevin Sorbo accused of sexual harassment by former co-star ...*
Click to expand...

_Accusations_ don't change *facts*, sweetie. Oops.


----------



## KissMy

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is absolutely underway in New Mexico. Sorry, *not* sorry.
Click to expand...


Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall???
Where is the proof??? Just another money stealing political liar scumbag!


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!


Bwahahahaha! Stolen?!? Nothing was "stolen", snowflake. It's all tax dollars being spent legally and being tracked properly.


KissMy said:


> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!


Sweetie...all estimates have the wall between $20 billion and $25 billion. There isn't a _single_ credible estimate out there for $72 billion. You're either lying due to hysteria or ignorant.


KissMy said:


> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall??? Where is the proof???


Google is your friend.


----------



## KissMy

P@triot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaha! Stolen?!? Nothing was "stolen", snowflake. It's all tax dollars being spent legally and being tracked properly.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweetie...all estimates have the wall between $20 billion and $25 billion. There isn't a _single_ credible estimate out there for $72 billion. You're either lying due to hysteria or ignorant.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall??? Where is the proof???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google is your friend.
Click to expand...


You made the claim of 450 miles of new wall, but you cant back it up!!!

The wall is child's play


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is absolutely underway in New Mexico. Sorry, *not* sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall???
> Where is the proof??? Just another money stealing political liar scumbag!
Click to expand...

All lies, of course.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> wall ? what wall - I dont see no damn wall.
> 
> you see a wall?
> 
> Hell no - and *you aint gonna see no damn wall either*.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is absolutely underway in New Mexico. Sorry, *not* sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall???
> Where is the proof??? Just another money stealing political liar scumbag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All lies, of course.
Click to expand...

President Trump’s plans to build a border wall could cost more than three times as much as initial estimates, in a Senate report released on Tuesday. The report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, snowflake, construction on the wall is also underway in New Mexico
> 
> 450 miles of border wall by next year? In Arizona, it starts
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is absolutely underway in New Mexico. Sorry, *not* sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall???
> Where is the proof??? Just another money stealing political liar scumbag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All lies, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> President Trump’s plans to build a border wall could cost more than three times as much as initial estimates, in a Senate report released on Tuesday. The report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain.
Click to expand...

The New York Times.  Enough said.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not underway in New Mexico to any significant extent.
> 
> 
> 
> It is absolutely underway in New Mexico. Sorry, *not* sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall???
> Where is the proof??? Just another money stealing political liar scumbag!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All lies, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> President Trump’s plans to build a border wall could cost more than three times as much as initial estimates, in a Senate report released on Tuesday. The report said the border wall could cost nearly $70 billion to build and $150 million a year to maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The New York Times.  Enough said.
Click to expand...


Homeland Security HSGAC - SOUTHERN BORDER WALL Soaring Cost Estimates and Lack of Planning Raise Fundamental Questions about Administration’s Key Domestic Priority

There is no reliable estimate of the cost of construction of the full border wall, but extrapolated estimates place the construction cost of the wall and associated technology and infrastructure at nearly $70 billion. That amounts to a total cost to every American man, woman, and child of over $200. A costbenefit analysis of the project is not complete. 

The projected cost of construction for every mile is rapidly increasing to as much as $36.6 million per mile. This does not include the costs of acquiring the land on which the wall will be built. It also does not include the maintenance costs of border barrier, which may total nearly $150 million per year.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> You made the claim of 450 miles of new wall, but you cant back it up!!!


Snowflake...I didn’t make a “claim” of _anything_. I merely posted a link to information. Something you’ve failed to do.

Meanwhile, you made a claim of $72 billion. I posted more links proving you’re lying.


----------



## P@triot

KissMy said:


> There is no reliable estimate of the cost of construction of the full border wall, but extrapolated estimates place the *construction cost of the wall* *and associated technology and infrastructure* at nearly $70 billion.


So they’ve added two items that have absolutely *nothing* to do with construction of the wall. And they’ve admitted as much. Why? Because they know the left is made up of mindless minions (such as “KissMy”) who won’t read what is written and won’t understand it anyway. 

All estimates have the wall between $20 and $25 billion. All estimates.


----------



## Slyhunter

KissMy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but $billions & $billions of stolen tax money!
> 
> 
> 
> Bwahahahaha! Stolen?!? Nothing was "stolen", snowflake. It's all tax dollars being spent legally and being tracked properly.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar Trump said it would only cost $2 billion, but will now cost $72 billion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweetie...all estimates have the wall between $20 billion and $25 billion. There isn't a _single_ credible estimate out there for $72 billion. You're either lying due to hysteria or ignorant.
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the pictures, video & satellite image of the new Wall??? Where is the proof???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the claim of 450 miles of new wall, but you cant back it up!!!
> 
> The wall is child's play
Click to expand...

It keeps the Welfare recipients out.
If you can climb the wall you can be a productive citizen in America and not collect Welfare.


----------



## P@triot

I've said for the past 2 years now that George Soros was behind all of this. Everybody has known it since the story broke early on.

Michelle Malkin Follows the Money Behind the Open Borders Movement


----------



## candycorn

So the price has gone down?






						Biden’s open borders will cost taxpayers $100 billion — and counting
					

Biden’s open borders will cost taxpayers $100 billion — and counting https://nypost.com/2022/09/16/bidens-open-borders-will-cost-taxpayers-100-billion/  It’s good that the average household income in Martha’s Vineyard is $133,000 a year because, hoo-boy, the illegal immigrants who arrived there...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




It just underscores that the right wing hate machine has zero idea what it's talking about.


----------



## TheReaper

bripat9643 said:


> Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year



Thank you for reminding us of that important point. Now that Trump's wall is off the table (for now) we have lost site of the cost of NOT building the wall.

And of course, before anyone cries that a wall will do no good, "Wall" is a phrase referring to a real wall plus multi-layered electronic warning systems


----------



## rightwinger

TheReaper said:


> Thank you for reminding us of that important point. Now that Trump's wall is off the table (for now) we have lost site of the cost of NOT building the wall.
> 
> And of course, before anyone cries that a wall will do no good, "Wall" is a phrase referring to a real wall plus multi-layered electronic warning systems


The cost of not building the wall is we receive low cost labor


----------



## surada

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.
> 
> The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.
> 
> The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.
> 
> They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.
> 
> They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.
> _
> *How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*
> _The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?
> 
> We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.
> 
> Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.
> 
> However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.
> 
> It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.
> 
> On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).
> 
> Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.
> 
> . . . . . . . ._​



If Trump's wall worked we wouldn't have a problem.


----------



## TheReaper

surada said:


> If Trump's wall worked we wouldn't have a problem.



If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.

You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?


----------



## Clipper

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?


Trump asskissers in the Senate led by Mitch wouldn't wouldn't fund your guy's wall, dummy.

But blame Dems if it makes you feel better.


----------



## otto105

TheReaper said:


> Thank you for reminding us of that important point. Now that Trump's wall is off the table (for now) we have lost site of the cost of NOT building the wall.
> 
> And of course, before anyone cries that a wall will do no good, "Wall" is a phrase referring to a real wall plus multi-layered electronic warning systems


How much does that cost?


----------



## surada

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?



4000 underaged girls are trafficked in Atlanta every day for the past 20 years, you moron.





TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?



How do you explain trafficking underage girls in Houston, LA, Atlanta, Chicago and Miami for the past 20 years?


----------



## dudmuck

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?











						McConnell: Enough Senate votes to reject Trump's wall move
					

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged Monday that opponents of President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border have enough votes in the Republican-led Senate to prevail on a resolution aimed at blocking the move...




					apnews.com
				




Trump had a republican majority in both house & senate in his first two years.


----------



## bripat9643

surada said:


> If Trump's wall worked we wouldn't have a problem.


The wall wasn't built, you fucking moron.


----------



## Canon Shooter

rightwinger said:


> The cost of not building the wall is we receive low cost labor



Tell that to the families of Terry and Brenda Aultman:







They were murdered during Bike Week in Daytona earlier this year by an illegal scumbag alien...


----------



## candycorn

TheReaper said:


> Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?


No but I’m sure you are…it’s your only opportunity to get laid…ever


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._​​_The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return._​​_The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media._​​_They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work._​​_They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers._​​*How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*​_The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?_​​_We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates._​​_Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion._​​_However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security._​​_It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption._​​_On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high)._​​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America._​​_. . . . . . . ._​



What bullshit.  The Great Wall of China failed.  So did Hadrian's wall, and Trump's wall.


----------



## rightwinger

Dragonlady said:


> What bullshit.  The Great Wall of China failed.  So did Hadrian's wall, and Trump's wall.


In Boston they built a wall called The Green Monster
It failed


----------



## Dragonlady

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?



Do you have any numbers on the number of girls trafficked illegally across the border????  What about the number of girls being trafficked in Central America after Trump pulled funding for the police to fight gangs there????  Do you have those numbers.

Do you any FACTS to back up your blanket assertions about immigration or are you going to continue to post debunked right wing talking points, FuckBoi.

We've debunked your stupid threads hundreds of times before you showed up here last week and decided to repost all of this bullshit all over again.  I guess Trump is taking such a drubbing in the press, that the Trump Cult, headed by Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis, both of whom are going to have problems getting re-elected.

Just like separating parents and children at the border completely backfired for Trump, this horrific treatment of immigrants is being condemned around the world by decent people everywhere.

Trumpist continue to prove that they are not and have never been "decent people".


----------



## CowboyTed

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._​​_The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return._​​_The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media._​​_They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work._​​_They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers._​​*How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*​_The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?_​​_We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates._​​_Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion._​​_However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security._​​_It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption._​​_On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high)._​​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America._​​_. . . . . . . ._​


62% of undocumented immigrants are just over staying there visas... This is a number rising every year...

Thanks for showing us that. Also the number of asylum seekers on the border is way higher than the ones flying in..


----------



## CowboyTed

Dragonlady said:


> Do you have any numbers on the number of girls trafficked illegally across the border????  What about the number of girls being trafficked in Central America after Trump pulled funding for the police to fight gangs there????  Do you have those numbers.
> 
> Do you any FACTS to back up your blanket assertions about immigration or are you going to continue to post debunked right wing talking points, FuckBoi.
> 
> We've debunked your stupid threads hundreds of times before you showed up here last week and decided to repost all of this bullshit all over again.  I guess Trump is taking such a drubbing in the press, that the Trump Cult, headed by Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis, both of whom are going to have problems getting re-elected.
> 
> Just like separating parents and children at the border completely backfired for Trump, this horrific treatment of immigrants is being condemned around the world by decent people everywhere.
> 
> Trumpist continue to prove that they are not and have never been "decent people".


This crisis much the like the oil supply crisis is another mess generally created by Trump and dumped on Biden...

62% of undocumented immigrants are just over staying there visas... The state dept handles that, Trump gutted the state dept while president.

The number of asylum seeker ad refugees has risen considerably, the most dangerous countries have people fleeing them, they feel less safe in there. Trump cut funding for security in those countries even though it is US paid for drug war that is causing that...


----------



## iceberg

Onyx said:


> Illegal immigrants in America pay more in taxes than they receive in state benefits. The net economic benefit that they provide through working is also positive.
> 
> You should stop sourcing information from openly biased op-ed media. In other words, stop using fake news.


And I should trust some random jackass spouting unsubstantiated bullshit.


----------



## iceberg

Onyx said:


> Competitive labor leads to a stronger economy. Next!


If the illegals were not here, legals would do the work. Taxes still get paid. 

Look. I can say random shit too!


----------



## rightwinger

iceberg said:


> If the illegals were not here, legals would do the work. Taxes still get paid.
> 
> Look. I can say random shit too!


With 3.6 percent unemployment?


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> What bullshit.  The Great Wall of China failed.  So did Hadrian's wall, and Trump's wall.


by "failed" you mean every 400 years the Mongols got through?  I call that a great success.
Neither wall failed, dipstick.  Was Britain ever invaded by the Scots?

Walls have worked every time they have been tried.  The prog meme about the Great Wall of China failing has been debunked 1000 times.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> With 3.6 percent unemployment?


That just means employers will have to increase the wages they pay.   Only a prog would be against that.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> That just means employers will have to increase the wages they pay.   Only a prog would be against that.


----------



## Godboy

rightwinger said:


> We make money off of illegals
> 
> That is why they are here


Thats sounds terrible, so lets get rid of every last one of them. Kick em all out.


----------



## rightwinger

Godboy said:


> Thats sounds terrible, so lets get rid of every last one of them. Kick em all out.


Give them work visas, pay a fair wage and have them pay taxes

Win/Win


----------



## Godboy

rightwinger said:


> Give them work visas, pay a fair wage and have them pay taxes
> 
> Win/Win


Nah, these scrubs arent qualified enough to be paid the same wage as Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

CowboyTed said:


> This crisis much the like the oil supply crisis is another mess generally created by Trump and dumped on Biden...
> 
> 62% of undocumented immigrants are just over staying there visas... The state dept handles that, Trump gutted the state dept while president.
> 
> The number of asylum seeker ad refugees has risen considerably, the most dangerous countries have people fleeing them, they feel less safe in there. Trump cut funding for security in those countries even though it is US paid for drug war that is causing that...


Biden created the oil supply crisis, numskull, and he also created this crisis.  How stupid, sleazy and dishonest do you have to be to blame this on Trump?  It's totally Biden's mess.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Give them work visas, pay a fair wage and have them pay taxes
> 
> Win/Win


Why should we do that?  The USA isn't a welfare agency for indigent Mexicans.

Where is the win for lower wage American workers?


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Why should we do that?  The USA isn't a welfare agency for indigent Mexicans.
> 
> Where is the win for lower wage American workers?


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


>


I'll take that to mean there is none.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

bripat9643 said:


> We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration.  Here's a more credible examination of the facts.
> 
> Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​
> _President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico._​​_The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return._​​_The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media._​​_They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work._​​_They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers._​​*How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.*​_The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?_​​_We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates._​​_Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost *$15 billion* at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion._​​_However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost *$21.6 billion*, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build.  This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security._​​_It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption._​​_On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion.  Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high)._​​_Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America._​​_. . . . . . . ._​


This is as ignorant and wrong now as it was back in 2017.

Trump’s ‘wall’ of fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, and hate would have done nothing to stop migration.

It’s just another example of the right’s stupidity and hate.


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is as ignorant and wrong now as it was back in 2017.
> 
> Trump’s ‘wall’ of fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, and hate would have done nothing to stop migration.
> 
> It’s just another example of the right’s stupidity and hate.


How is it wrong, douchebag?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

TheReaper said:


> Thank you for reminding us of that important point. Now that Trump's wall is off the table (for now) we have lost site of the cost of NOT building the wall.
> 
> And of course, before anyone cries that a wall will do no good, "Wall" is a phrase referring to a real wall plus multi-layered electronic warning systems


It’s a reminder of the fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, and hate common to most on the right.

Not that a reminder was needed.


----------



## bripat9643

IcebergSlim said:


> They are "facts" because some random douche on the innertubes asserts so, or because said random douche is endorsed by Bripat?


Which claim do you dispute, douchebag?


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s a reminder of the fear, ignorance, racism, bigotry, and hate common to most on the right.
> 
> Not that a reminder was needed.


In other words, it's common sense.  

You can't win the issue based on facts, so you resort to ad hominems.


----------



## dudmuck

bripat9643 said:


> The wall wasn't built, you fucking moron.





			https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-07/how-much-of-president-donald-trumps-border-wall-was-built
		


hundreds of miles were built.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Give them work visas, pay a fair wage and have them pay taxes
> 
> Win/Win


That won’t work for conservatives.

For conservatives it’s about keeping the brown people out who speak Spanish – it’s about white grievance politics and racist replacement theory.


----------



## bripat9643

dudmuck said:


> https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-07/how-much-of-president-donald-trumps-border-wall-was-built
> 
> 
> 
> hundreds of miles were built.


How much water does a bucket hold if you only have half of a bucket?

Are progs all fucking morons?


----------



## Lesh

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?


He had two years of a compliant Congress and did nothing


----------



## Dragonlady

CowboyTed said:


> This crisis much the like the oil supply crisis is another mess generally created by Trump and dumped on Biden...
> 
> 62% of undocumented immigrants are just over staying there visas... The state dept handles that, Trump gutted the state dept while president.
> 
> The number of asylum seeker ad refugees has risen considerably, the most dangerous countries have people fleeing them, they feel less safe in there. Trump cut funding for security in those countries even though it is US paid for drug war that is causing that...



Adding to what you've posted, there is also a climate change fueled drought going on in Central America, and crops are getting fried to a crisp.  There's nothing to eat.  

It cannot be said often enough that MS13 is an AMERICAN gang, with their headquarters and leadership living in California.  The USA deported gang violence to Central America, not the other way around.


----------



## bripat9643

Lesh said:


> He had two years of a compliant Congress and did nothing


He didn't have a compliant Congress.  It was infested with Trump hating never-Trumpers.


----------



## dudmuck

Lesh said:


> He had two years of a compliant Congress and did nothing











						National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Trump shut down the government for a month a cost $11 billion because he couldnt get his wall.


----------



## Dragonlady

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?



Another fact free post from our newest FuckBoi.  Republicans held Congress and the Senate for two years and didn't give Trump one red nickel for his wall.

Democrats offered Trump $25 million to build his wall, and then Stephen Miller kiboshed the deal, because it gave the DACA kids a path to citizenship.  Trump renegged on his agreement, as usual.  

But Trump has NO ONE to blame but himself for the lack of funding.  He had the funding and he threw it away.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> He didn't have a compliant Congress.  It was infested with Trump hating never-Trumpers.



Boo fucking hoo.  It's always some lame excuse or another for Trump's failures.  People are always out to get him.  It's never Trump's fault if he's an incompetent clown and the business world laughs at him.

No one in history has lead 7 different corporations all around the world into bankruptcy.  That takes a very special talent for fucking up badly.  That's in addition to the more than $1 billion in losses that Fred Trump covered in the 1980's for Dumb Donald.

And after 500,000 people died, and your economy was crashed, you still believe that smart, sane Americans didn't vote the asshole out of office.

And you call the rest of the world "morons".


----------



## bripat9643

dudmuck said:


> National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump shut down the government for a month a cost $11 billion because he couldnt get his wall.


Dims shut it down, douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> Boo fucking hoo.  It's always some lame excuse or another for Trump's failures.  People are always out to get him.  It's never Trump's fault if he's an incompetent clown and the business world laughs at him.


Facts are not "lame excuses," moron.


Dragonlady said:


> No one in history has lead 7 different corporations all around the world into bankruptcy.  That takes a very special talent for fucking up badly.  That's in addition to the more than $1 billion in losses that Fred Trump covered in the 1980's for Dumb Donald.


That never happened, shit for brains



Dragonlady said:


> And after 500,000 people died, and your economy was crashed, you still believe that smart, sane Americans didn't vote the asshole out of office.
> 
> And you call the rest of the world "morons".



Biden killed 1,500,000 people, dumbass.

You just keep posting the same debunked Dim talking points over and over.


----------



## Dragonlady

TheReaper said:


> If Dems had allowed him to build it it would have worked. You do realize that most of it never got built right? Democrats blocked it.
> 
> You say you are a female. Are you happy that many girls illegally trafficked across the border are sold into slavery and prostitution?



Why do idiots always say that if you don't support their wrong headed and stupid ideas, you're in favour of something heinous?

It is possible to think that girls are not being trafficked over the border in large numbers, and be fully opposed to human trafficking, just as it's possible to think that those who believe in "grooming of children" in schools are stupid and wrongheaded in their beliefs, without being in favour of pedophiles.

You can know what a failure Trump's wall really is without being in favour of open borders.  There are other and better solutions available, which also happen to be cheaper, and more permanent.


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> Dims shut it down, douchebag.



No they didn't.  Trump took full responsibility for the shut down and was happy to do so.


----------



## bripat9643

Dragonlady said:


> No they didn't.  Trump took full responsibility for the shut down and was happy to do so.


Really?  Where's the evidence to support that claim?


----------



## candycorn

candycorn said:


> No @TheReaper  but I’m sure you are…it’s your only opportunity to get laid…ever


otto105 surada  I was rather proud of that one myself.  TheRaper didn't reply....musta struck a nerve


----------



## Lesh

bripat9643 said:


> He didn't have a compliant Congress.  It was infested with Trump hating never-Trumpers.


There’s always that excuse huh.

If you really believe that you ought never vote Republican again


----------

